DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-28 were previously canceled. Claims 29-50 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 29-31, 33-34, 42-44, and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carreon (US 2021/0086448 A1).
Regarding claims 29 and 31, Carreon teaches a method for printing a 3D part in a layer-wise manner (Fig 1 and ¶0030-0035,0043-0044), the method comprising providing a pool of polymerizable liquid in a vessel over a build window (a resin cassette (10) for an additive manufacturing apparatus includes a light transmissive window (11) and a circumferential frame (12) connected to and surrounding the window (11); the window (11) and frame (12) together form a well configured to receive a light polymerizable resin (21) (Fig 1 and ¶0030-0035); positioning a downward-facing build platform in the pool, thereby defining a build region above the build window and selectively curing a volume of polymerizable liquid in the build region by imparting electromagnetic radiation through the build window to form a printed layer of the part adhered to the build platform (a fluorophore layer is in or on the window, producing the object (31) from the data file and the resin (21) by intermittently and/or continuously exposing the resin (21) to patterned light from the light source of the UV light engine (14) to photopolymerize the resin (21), while advancing the carrier platform (12) and the resin cassette (10) away from one another) (Fig 1 and ¶0030-0035,0043-0044); and actively cooling the build window to remove energy imparted by the electromagnetic radiation and the polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid (the photopolymerization reaction in stereolithography is exothermic; a cooler is operatively associated with the window (11) and the controller (18)) (Fig 1 and ¶0005,0016,0048).
Carreon teaches a method for printing a 3D part in a layer-wise manner comprising actively cooling the build window to remove energy imparted by the electromagnetic radiation and the polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid, Carreon does not explicitly teach a method further comprising actively cooling the build window to remove energy imparted by the electromagnetic radiation and the polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid such that the printed layer is between about 1° C. and about 30° C. below an average part temperature nor wherein the actively cooling step reduces the temperature of the printed layer to between about 5° C. and about 10° C. below the average part temperature.
However, Carreon teaches that the photopolymerization reaction in stereolithography is exothermic, and as the processes become more rapid, the amount of heat generated increases (¶0005). Carreon discloses that some heat generation can be favorable (as a warmer resin is less viscous and flows more easy), but too much heat, or irregular heat patterns, can cause damage to some windows, indicate a problem in the production process, or lead to warping or mechanical problems in the part being produced (¶0005).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Carreon such that actively cooling the build window to remove energy imparted by the electromagnetic radiation and the polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid such that the printed layer is between about 1° C. and about 30° C. below an average part temperature and wherein the actively cooling step reduces the temperature of the printed layer to between about 5° C. and about 10° C. below the average part temperature with a reasonable expectation of success to avoid warping or mechanical problems in the part being produced (¶0005).
Regarding claims 42 and 44, Carreon teaches a method for printing a 3D part in a layer-wise manner (Fig 1 and ¶0030-0035,0043-0044), the method comprising providing a pool of polymerizable liquid in a vessel over a build window (a resin cassette (10) for an additive manufacturing apparatus includes a light transmissive window (11) and a circumferential frame (12) connected to and surrounding the window (11); the window (11) and frame (12) together form a well configured to receive a light polymerizable resin (21) (Fig 1 and ¶0030-0035); positioning a downward-facing build platform in the pool, thereby defining a build region above the build window and selectively curing a volume of polymerizable liquid in the build region by imparting electromagnetic radiation through the build window to cause the polymerizable liquid to exothermically react and raise the temperature of the polymerizable liquid while forming a polymerized part layer that adheres to the build platform and the top surface of the optically transparent plate (a fluorophore layer is in or on the window, producing the object (31) from the data file and the resin (21) by intermittently and/or continuously exposing the resin (21) to patterned light from the light source of the UV light engine (14) to photopolymerize the resin (21), while advancing the carrier platform (12) and the resin cassette (10) away from one another; the photopolymerization reaction in stereolithography is exothermic) (Fig 1 and ¶0005,0030-0035,0043-0044); and actively cooling the build window to remove energy imparted by the electromagnetic radiation and the exothermic polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid (a cooler is operatively associated with the window (11) and the controller (18)) (Fig 1 and ¶0016,0048).
Carreon teaches a method for printing a 3D part in a layer-wise manner comprising actively cooling the build window to remove energy imparted by the electromagnetic radiation and the exothermic polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid, Carreon does not explicitly teach a method further comprising actively cooling the build window to remove energy imparted by the electromagnetic radiation and the exothermic polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid such that the printed layer is between about 1° C. and about 30° C. below an average part temperature nor wherein the actively cooling step reduces the temperature of the printed layer to between about 5° C. and about 10° C. below the average part temperature.
However, Carreon teaches that the photopolymerization reaction in stereolithography is exothermic, and as the processes become more rapid, the amount of heat generated increases (¶0005). Carreon discloses that some heat generation can be favorable (as a warmer resin is less viscous and flows more easy), but too much heat, or irregular heat patterns, can cause damage to some windows, indicate a problem in the production process, or lead to warping or mechanical problems in the part being produced (¶0005).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Carreon such that actively cooling the build window to remove energy imparted by the electromagnetic radiation and the exothermic polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid such that the printed layer is between about 1° C. and about 30° C. below an average part temperature and wherein the actively cooling step reduces the temperature of the printed layer to between about 5° C. and about 10° C. below the average part temperature with a reasonable expectation of success to avoid warping or mechanical problems in the part being produced (¶0005).
Regarding claims 30 and 43, as applied to claims 29 and 42, Carreon teaches a method further comprising separating the cooled printed layer from the top surface of the build window; raising the build platform in a z-direction to a height of a next layer to be printed such that a gap is formed between the cooled printed layer and the build window such that the polymerizable liquid flows into the gap; and repeating the selectively curing, actively cooling, separating and raising steps until the 3D part is printed (Fig 1 and ¶0005,0030-0035,0043-0044).
Regarding claims 33-34 and 46-47, as applied to claims 29 and 42, Carreon teaches a method wherein the active cooling is continuous, wherein the active cooling utilizes conduction (Peltier coolers) (¶0048).
Claims 32, 35-37, 41, 45, and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carreon (US 2021/0086448 A1), as applied to claims 29 and 42, and in further view of Comb (US 2013/0186558 A1).
Regarding claims 32, 35-37, 41, 45, and 48-50, as applied to claims 29 and 42, Carreon does not teaches a method wherein the active cooling is transient; wherein the active cooling utilizes convection; wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing air knives imparting a flow of a gas on a bottom surface of the window; wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing a flow of a cooling fluid between spaced apart panes of the build window; and wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing one or more thermoelectric devices contacting a bottom surface of the build window to conduct heat from the printed layer.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (active cooling; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Comb discloses the known technique of an active cooling device like a thermoelectric cooler, and active heat sink (e.g., liquid or air-cooled), an air blower (e.g., air knife, convection air tunnel), a phase change material (e.g., liquid water, liquid nitrogen, carbon dioxide, Freon, etc.), and/or other suitable cooling mechanism that removes thermal energy in a line or over an area (wherein the active cooling is transient; wherein the active cooling utilizes convection; wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing air knives imparting a flow of a gas on a bottom surface of the window; wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing a flow of a cooling fluid between spaced apart panes of the build window; and wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing one or more thermoelectric devices contacting a bottom surface of the build window to conduct heat from the printed layer) (¶0083,0220).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Carreon by applying the known technique wherein the active cooling is transient; wherein the active cooling utilizes convection; wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing air knives imparting a flow of a gas on a bottom surface of the window; wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing a flow of a cooling fluid between spaced apart panes of the build window; and wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing one or more thermoelectric devices contacting a bottom surface of the build window to conduct heat from the printed layer disclosed in Comb to the method disclosed in Carreon with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carreon (US 2021/0086448 A1), as applied to claim 29, and in further view of Brewington (US 2011/0012969 A1).
Regarding claim 38, as applied to claim 29, Carreon does not teach a method wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing a chilled roller contacting a bottom surface of the build window.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (active cooling; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Lee discloses the known technique wehrein active cooling comprises utilizing a chilled roller (¶0045).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Carreon by applying the known technique wherein active cooling comprises utilizing a chilled roller disclosed in Brewington to the method disclosed in Carreon such that the chilled roller contacts a bottom surface of the build window with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carreon (US 2021/0086448 A1), as applied to claim 29, and in further view of Lee (US 2019/0202124 A1).
Regarding claim 39, as applied to claim 29, Carreon does not teach a method wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing a metal plate or shutter contacting a bottom surface of the build window.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (active cooling; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Lee discloses the known technique active cooling comprises utilizing a metal plate or shutter (¶0019-0020).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Carreon by applying the known technique wherein active cooling comprises utilizing a metal plate or shutter disclosed in Lee to the method disclosed in Carreon such that the metal plate contacts a bottom surface of the build window with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carreon (US 2021/0086448 A1), as applied to claim 29, and in further view of Zhang (DE-102015009720-A1 - translation provided).
Regarding claim 40, as applied to claim 29, Carreon does not teach a method wherein the active cooling comprises utilizing a plurality of thermally conductive 1-dimensional strands embedded in the build window to conduct heat from the printed layer.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (active cooling; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Lee discloses the known technique wherein active cooling comprises utilizing a conductor strand or a winding (utilizing a plurality of thermally conductive 1-dimensional strands) (Translation, Pg 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Carreon by applying the known technique wherein active cooling comprises utilizing a conductor strand or a winding disclosed in Zhang to the method disclosed in Carreon such that the plurality of conductor strands are embedded in the build window to conduct heat from the printed layer with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 29-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,608 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 29-41, the limitations recited in claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12 of the reference patent disclose a similar method.
Claims 42-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,608 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 42-50, the limitations recited in claims 13-18 of the reference patent disclose a similar method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hart (US 2018/0200790 A1) systems and tooling for cooling components during additive manufacturing (abstract), wherein build plates with built in cooling means below the build surface and system configurations for air cooling the component (¶0005).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743