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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-14 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “imager” in line 6 should read “image.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends from claim 6, and should depend from claim 8 as this is the method claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull et al. (US Patent No. 5,447,822), hereinafter Hull.
Regarding claim 8, Hull discloses a method of manufacturing a 3D article (stereolithographic part 3) comprising: (I) providing a 3D printing system (e.g. Fig. 1) including:
(a) a vessel (vat 2) configured to contain a photocurable resin (1) (4:55-4:60);
(b) a coating subsystem including a coater blade (doctor or leveling blade) (2:62-3:10; also Figs. 20a-20c; 13:20-13:69);
(c) a build plate (platform 5) coupled to a vertical movement mechanism (elevator 14) (4:61-4:62); and (d) an imaging system (UV light source 6) configured to selectively image the photocurable resin over a build plane or layer (4:67-5:7 describes how the layer is imaged at point 17 upon the working surface);
(II) operating the vertical movement mechanism (elevator 14) to position an upper surface of the build plane or 3D article at the build plane (5:4-5:5); translating a lower edge of the coater blade over the build plane along a scan direction (13:8-13:52; Figs. 20a-20c).
Hull does not explicitly disclose “concurrent with translating the lower edge of the coater blade, operating the imaging system to selectively image the build plane while maintaining an exclusion zone that includes a digital shadow that translates with the coater blade, the digital shadow includes an area of the coater blade and a fluidic wake area that follows the coater blade.” (emphasis added).
However, Hull teaches (13:10-13:20) that “the trapped volume problem may occur in the case when a part being built which encapsulates a trapped volume of uncured resin. In this instance, when a leveling blade is moved over the resin surface, pushing excess liquid resin ahead of it, and leaving a smooth working surface in its wake, when the blade encounters a trapped volume, the excess liquid resin may flow underneath the blade, and disrupt formation of the flat working surface being formed in the wake of the blade.”
Thus, Hull would seem to provide a reasonable motivation for selectively imaging the build plane while maintaining an exclusion zone that does not include the area that is under the blade and the area that includes where the wake of the material would be given the movement of the blade (see Figs. 20a-20c). The reasoning for this is that if the material is solid underneath he blade (“when the blade encounters a trapped volume”), formation of the flat working surface being formed is not smooth due to the issue of having a trapped volume under the blade. Accordingly, in view of these teachings above, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that there is an exclusion zone maintained that includes an area of the coater blade and a wake area as to not cause disruption of the material with a trapped volume.
Regarding claims 9-12, Hull discloses the subject matter of claim 8. One of ordinary skill in the art, from the teachings of Hull above would have recognized that the wake area has a width (W) (inherently) that is at least partially based upon a thickness of the layer of resin (14:57-14:65) and a viscosity of the resin as well as the shape and speed of the knife as the material will flow over and around the knife as it is passed through the material.
Regarding claims 13-14, Hull discloses the subject matter of claim 8, and further discloses that the imaging system includes a laser (15:5-15:6; UV light source 6 is referred to as a laser) and a scanner (10:14-10:30; Fig. 11, 19), and the method includes operating the laser to output an energy beam and operating the scanner (10:14-10:30) as to scan the energy beam over the build plane. These would also read upon the “spatial light modulator” (3:60-3:61) and would include operating the light source to output radiation, that is modulated and focused onto the build plane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742