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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the platen of Turner does not move laterally relative to the transparent sheet; rather Turner moves the light bar 27 laterally relative to the platen and transparent sheet. Thus, Turner cannot "selectively harden a layer of the photocurable liquid over the lower face of the 3D article over a lateral area that is larger than the lateral area of the build plane"
Examiner maintains that the light bar-27 has a lateral mechanism-29 which can scan over the entire lateral area individual light emitting devices of the array 28 are activated to selectively harden layers of resin over the build plane ([0019], [0020], therefore the limitation that printing system can selectively harden a layer of the photocurable liquid over the lower face-24 of the 3D article over a lateral area that is larger than the lateral area of the build plane is met as array-28 directs the light towards the build plane-32 covering the operating distance H from the build plane i.e. the size of an actual build plane where the light would reach from a single position. and moving the light does allow for building an object that is larger than the build plane which can cure resin continuously over a much larger area(Figure-1, [0022]). Also the claim doesn’t prohibit moving the light relative to the object.
Applicant argues that all three cited prior art references disclose a platen width that is the same size or smaller than the opening width.
Examiner doesn’t agree as Turner shows that platen-20 has a larger width than opening-10 (Figure 1). Examiner interprets that the opening width is the area covered by the edges by rim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-10, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20200039143) in view of KR 101715587B1, hereinafter KR’587 translation attached.
Regarding Claim 1 Turner discloses three-dimensional (3D) printing system configured to manufacture a 3D article comprising: a build vessel configured to contain a photocurable liquid (Figure 1, [0014], photocurable liquid-8, vessel-6), the build vessel including: a lower wall having an opening with an opening width along a lateral X-axis (Figure 1, [0015], opening-10); and a transparent sheet that closes the opening; a build platen having a lower surface in facing relation with the transparent sheet and having a platen width along the lateral X-axis (Figure 1, [0015], transparent sheet-12, platen-20), the platen width is greater than the opening width (Figure 1); a projection light engine below the build vessel (Figure 1, [0017], light engine-26); a movement mechanism; a controller configured to: operate the movement mechanism to provide positioning of a first lateral end of the build platen over the build plane and to position a lower face of the 3D article coplanar with the build plane (Figure 1, [0019]-[0020], controller-36); and concurrent with imparting relative motion, operate the projection light engine to selectively and temporally irradiate the build plane and to selectively harden a layer of the photocurable liquid over the lower face of the 3D article over a lateral area that is larger than the lateral area of the build plane ([0019]-[0020]; the light engine-27 selectively applies light energy through transparent sheet-12 to selectively polymerize proximate to the lower face-24; array-28 directs the light towards the build plane-32 covering the operating distance H from the build plane i.e. the size of an actual build plane where the light would reach from a single position. and moving the light does allow for building an object that is larger than the build plane which can cure resin continuously over a much larger area (Figure 1, [0022]); the build plane having a lateral width along the lateral X-axis that is less than or equal to the opening width (Figure 1-2, [0019], build plane-32 lateral width is less than the opening-10 on both sides along the horizontal-axis; the examiner is interpreting the lateral width as the width that is scanned by the light bar-27 at one point along the horizontal/X- axis) .
Turner didn’t particularly disclose that projection light engine configured to project pixelated radiation up to a build plane that is less than one millimeter above the transparent sheet. However, Turner did disclose that light guide-30 maintains a proper spacing between the build plane and the transparent sheet-12 , which is H and that being controlled by the controller ([0017], [0020]), therefore to maintain the optimum distance so that light engine configured to project pixelated radiation up to a build plane that is less than one millimeter above the transparent sheet as claimed can be achieved by routine experimentation.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Further Turner specifically didn’t disclose that controller operate the movement mechanism to impart relative motion between the build platen and the build plane along the lateral X-axis. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, KR’587 discloses that the controller can move the build platen and the build plane in the lateral X/horizontal-axes (Figures 1-4, [0025], build platen-130, build plane is formed along the container-110, translation).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’s teaching with that of KR’587 teaching of the relative motion between the build platen and the build plane along the lateral X-axis for the purpose of selective photocuring of the resin along the container lateral axes.
Regarding Claim 2 Turner discloses wherein an upper surface of the lower wall of the build vessel has a floor length along the lateral X/horizontal -axis, the floor length is at least two times the opening width (Figure 1 showing that upper surface-14 which is measure of the floor length is more than the twice of the opening-10 which is at the edges of the transparent sheet-12, Figure annotated ).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3 Turner r discloses wherein the floor length is at least three times the opening width (Figure 1 showing that upper surface-14 is more than the thrice of the opening-10, Figure annotated ). "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125 II
Regarding Claim 4 Turner discloses wherein the floor length is at least four times the opening width (Figure 1 showing that upper surface-14 is more than the four times of the opening-10, Figure annotated ) . "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977) See MPEP 2125 II
Regarding Claim 5 Turner discloses wherein the lower wall of the build vessel has a floor length along the lateral X/horizontal-axis and a floor width along the lateral Y/ horizontal -axis (Figure 1, [0014], lower wall-16), floor length is at least two times the opening width (Figure 1 , showing that upper surface-14 which is measure of the floor length is more than the twice of the opening-10 which is at the edges of the transparent sheet-12, Figure annotated ). Further re: the opening has an opening length along the lateral Y-axis, the opening length is at least 70 percent of the floor width (Figure annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
741
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
"[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125 II.
Regarding Claim 6 Turner discloses wherein the floor length is at least three times the opening width (Figure 1 showing that upper surface-14 is more than the thrice of the opening-10, Figure annotated ). "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125 II.
Regarding Claim 9 , Turner disclose that wherein the movement mechanism is configured to impart vertical movement ([0020]) but didn’t specifically disclose that movement mechanism is configured to impart lateral movement to the build platen. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, KR’587 discloses that the controller can move the build platen and the build plane in the lateral X/horizontal -axes (Figures 1-4, [0025], build platen-130, build plane is formed along the container-110, translation).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’s teaching with that of KR’587 teaching of the build platen and the build plane along the lateral X/horizontal-axis for the purpose of selective photocuring of the resin along the container lateral axes.
Regarding Claim 10 wherein the movement mechanism is configured to impart vertical movement of the build platen and the projection light engine with the build vessel and the projection light engine in fixed relation to each other along the X-axis ([0020]) but did not state that movement mechanism is configured to impart lateral movement to the build vessel.
In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, KR’587 discloses that the controller can move the build platen and the build plane in the lateral X/horizontal -axes (Figures 1-4, [0025], build platen-130, build plane is formed along the container-110, translation).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’s teaching with that of KR’587 teaching of the build platen and the build plane along the lateral X/horizaontal-axis for the purpose of selective photocuring of the resin along the container lateral axes.
Regarding Claim 16 Turner discloses three-dimensional (3D) printing system configured to manufacture a 3D article comprising: a build vessel configured to contain a photocurable liquid (Figure 1, [0014], photocurable liquid-8, vessel-6), the build vessel including : a lower wall having a floor length and width along mutually perpendicular X-axis and Y-axis respectively (Figure 1, [0015], lower surface-15), the lower wall defining an opening with an opening width along the lateral X axis that is less than a third of the floor length (Figure 1 showing that upper surface-14 is more than the thrice of the opening-10) and an opening length along the lateral Y-axis that is at least 70% of the floor width ( Figure annotated above ); and a transparent sheet that closes the opening (Figure 1 transparent sheet-12, [0015]); a build platen having a lower surface in facing relation with the transparent sheet and having a platen width along the lateral X-axis, the platen width is greater than the opening width (Figure 1, ); a projection light engine below the build vessel and configured to project pixelated radiation up to a build plane that is less than one millimeter above the transparent sheet (Figure 1, [0017], light engine-26), the build plane having a lateral width along the lateral X-axis that is less than or equal to the opening width Figure 1-2, [0019], build plane-32 lateral width is less than the opening-10 on both sides along the horizontal-axis; the examiner is interpreting the lateral width as the width that is scanned by the light bar-27 along the horizontal/X- axis)at one point a movement mechanism; a controller configured to: operate the movement mechanism to provide positioning of a first lateral end of the build platen over the build plane and to position a lower face of the 3D article coplanar with the build plane (Figure 1, [0019]-[0020], controller-36); and concurrent with imparting relative motion, operate the projection light engine to selectively and temporally irradiate the build plane and to selectively harden a layer of the photocurable liquid over the lower face of the 3D article over a lateral area that is larger than the lateral area of the build plane ([0019]-[0020]; the light engine-27 selectively applies light energy through transparent sheet-12 to selectively polymerize proximate to the lower face-24) . Further Turner specifically didn’t disclose that controller operate the movement mechanism to impart relative motion between the build platen and the build plane along the lateral X-axis. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, KR’587 discloses that the controller can move the build platen and the build plane in the lateral X/horizontal-axes (Figures 1-4, [0025], build platen-130, build plane is formed along the container-110, translation).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’s teaching with that of KR’587 teaching of the relative motion between the build platen and the build plane along the lateral X-axis for the purpose of selective photocuring of the resin along the container lateral axes.
Regarding Claim 19 , Turner disclose that wherein the movement mechanism is configured to impart vertical movement ([0020]) but didn’t specifically disclose that movement mechanism is configured to impart lateral movement to the build platen. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, KR’587 discloses that the controller can move the build platen and the build plane in the lateral X/horizontal -axes (Figures 1-4, [0025], build platen-130, build plane is formed along the container-110, translation).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’s teaching with that of KR’587 teaching of the build platen and the build plane along the lateral X/horizontal-axis for the purpose of selective photocuring of the resin along the container lateral axes.
Regarding Claim 20, Turner discloses wherein the movement mechanism includes a first movement mechanism configured to position the build platen with respect to the Z-axis (Figure 1, [0014]-[0016]) and a second movement mechanism configured to move the build platen and the projection light engine together and in fixed relationship to each other with respect to the X-axis (Figure 1, [0014], [0119], [0020]).
Claim(s) 7-8, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 20200039143) in view of KR101715587B1, hereinafter KR’587 translation attached further in view of Childers (US 20200039142)
Regarding Claim 7-8, 17-18 wherein the controller is configured to selectively harden a layer of the photocurable liquid over the lower face of the 3D article ([0020]) but didn’t disclose that controller is configured to selectively harden a layer of the photocurable liquid over the lower face of the 3D article over a lateral area that is at least 50% larger than the lateral area of the build plane. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Childers, teaches a 3 D printing system comprising a support scaffold-28 driven by actuator-34 moves to different lateral position to allow the light engine-22 to reach the entire build plane-26 (Figure 1, [0033], [0034]); therefore the claim limitation that controller is configured to selectively harden a layer of the photocurable liquid over the lower face of the 3D article over a lateral area that is at least 50% larger or 100% larger than the lateral area of the build plane is met.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Turner’s teaching with that of Childers teaching of the scaffold moving to different lateral positions to allow the light engine to reach the entire build plane for selectively curing layers of the resin over a laterally extending build plane ([0014], [0033]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
