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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 12, 15, 17, 21 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, “loading into within the resin reservoir” is awkward. Change to “loading into the resin reservoir”.
Claim 12, “at least one of the known wavelength … is between 620 nm and 630 nm” makes it unclear whether the known wavelength must be between red and near-infrared, between 620 nm and 630 nm, or both.
Claim 15, “known wavelength the light from the light source” is awkward. Change to “known wavelength of the light from the light source”.
Claim 17, “a rotational stage for rotating wherein” is awkward. Change to “a rotational stage for rotating the resin reservoir, wherein”.
Claim 21, “the isosurface” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 27, “the isosurface assembled by the …” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 14, 17-18 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrot, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347929 A1 (‘929).
As per claim 1, ‘929 discloses an optical scattering tomography (OST) system for imaging an object, within a resin reservoir, formed by light from a projector (e.g., See ‘929; [0083], which discloses a tomographic printing system that forms an object in a resin container using a projected light), the OST system comprising:
a light source for illuminating the object within the resin reservoir with light having a known wavelength (e.g., See ‘929; [0084] – [0085] and [0091], which discloses a measuring light source that emits a measuring beam for illuminating the object I the resin container, the measuring beam having a wavelength different from the polymerization wavelength);
a camera for capturing an image associated with scattering of the light from the light source by the object in the resin reservoir (e.g., See ‘929; [0084] – [0085] and [0090], which discloses a camera recording captured images of the object in the resin container based on scattering of the measuring beam); and
a reconstruction engine for assembling a model representative of the object in accordance with a plurality of captured images from the camera (e.g. See ‘929; [0095] – [0096], which discloses back-projecting the captured images to generate a three-dimensional map representative of the object).
Although ‘929 discloses a measuring light source for illuminating the object in the resin container and a camera for capturing images of the object (e.g., See ‘929; [0084] – [0085] and [0090] – [0094]), ‘929 does not specifically disclose that the measuring light source and the camera are oriented along independent axes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the measuring light source and the camera along independent axes because that would reduce direct, unscattered light from the measuring light source reaching the camera and therefore make scattered light from the object easier to detect.
As per claim 3, although ‘929 discloses a measuring light source for illuminating the object in the resin container, the camera for capturing images of the object, and the measuring beam arranged at an angle relative to the polymerizing projection beam, preferably 90 degrees (e.g., See ‘929; [0084] – [0085] and [0090] – [0094]), ‘929 does not specifically disclose that the measuring light source and the camera are oriented along substantially orthogonal axes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the light source and camera along substantially orthogonal axes because that would further reduce direct, unscattered light from the measuring light source reaching the camera and therefore make the scattered light from the object easier to detect.
As per claim 5, ‘929 further discloses that the light source is one of a Light Emitting Diode, a laser, and a filtered light source (e.g., See '929; [0091], which discloses the measuring beam as an expanded and collimated laser beam).
As per claim 6, ‘929 further discloses a kit with the projector (e.g., See ‘929; [0083] – [0085], which discloses the projector, the measuring light source, the camera and the resin container provided together as components of the same tomographic printing system. Under BRI, “a kit” is broadly interpreted to correspond to a collection of components provided together), wherein the projector projects an image into the resin reservoir, the image determined in accordance with the model of the object (e.g., See ‘929; [0083] and [0088], which discloses projecting two-dimensional light patterns into the resin container and generating the projection patterns from a three-dimensional model of the object).
As per claim 10, ‘929 further discloses a kit, the kit further comprising a resin for loading into within the resin reservoir (e.g., See ‘929; [0083] and [0114], which discloses a resin container comprising photosensitive material and providing a resin to be polymerized. Under BRI, a kit is interpreted to correspond to a collection of components provided together), the resin being photocurable in response to exposure to a wavelength of light associated with the light from the projector (e.g., See ‘929; [0083], which discloses photopolymerizing the photoresponsive material by projected two-dimensional light patterns), and not photocurable to the known wavelength of light from the light source (e.g., See ‘929; [0085], which discloses that the wavelength of the measuring beam is different from the polymerization wavelength since the measuring beam wavelength does not cause polymerization of the photoresponsive material).
As per claim 14, ‘929 further discloses a spectral filter between the reservoir and the camera (e.g., See ‘929; [0145], which discloses an optical filter being positioned between the camera lens and the resin container).
As per claim 17, ‘929 further discloses a kit that further comprises a rotational stage for rotating, wherein the resin reservoir rotates with respect to the camera and the projector (e.g., See ‘929; [0083] - [0085] and [0139], which discloses a resin container that is rotated by a rotation platform while projector light is directed into the resin container and images are captured by a camera. Under BRI, a kit is interpreted to correspond to a collection of components provided together).
As per claim 18, ‘929 further discloses that the reconstruction engine generates the model in accordance with three-dimensional scattering density information determined in accordance with a plurality of images captured by the camera (e.g., See ‘929; [0090] and [0095] – [0096], which discloses capturing images in which solidified object regions scatter light and back-projecting the captured image information to create a three-dimensional map representative of the object).
As per claim 24, ‘929 further discloses that the output of the reconstruction engine is provided as an input to a projector control system (e.g., See ‘929; [0095] and [0110], which discloses generating corrected projection patterns from the three-dimensional map and using them in a real-time closed loop system that controls the projector).
As per claim 25, ‘929 further discloses that the projector control system terminates the projection of light into the reservoir in accordance with the output of the reconstruction engine (e.g., See ‘929; [0173] – [0174], which discloses evaluating, from captured image information, whether the object has been completely manufactured and stopping projection of the two-dimensional light patterns when the object is determined to be completely manufactured).
As per claim 26, ‘929 further discloses that the projector control system controls light output by the projector in accordance with the model of the object and the output of the reconstruction engine (e.g., See ‘929; [0095] – [0096] and [0110], which discloses generating corrected projection patterns from the three-dimensional map representative of the object, based on captured image information, and using the corrected patterns in a real-time closed-loop system to control the projector).
As per claim 27, ‘929 further discloses a comparison engine for generating an output representative of a difference between a model of the object and the isosurface assembled by the reconstruction engine (e.g., See ’929; [0024] and [0095] - [0096], which discloses forming a three-dimensional map from measured projections and comparing it with the original 3D object. As far as “isosurface”, it would be obvious for the three-dimensional map to show the outer shape surface of the object).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrot, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347929 A1 (‘929), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Berber, U.S. Patent No. 4,247,783 A (‘783).
As per claim 4, although ‘929 discloses that the projector and measuring light source are oriented at about 90 degrees to each other (e.g., See ‘929; [0085] and [0120]), ‘929 does not specifically disclose that the projector, light source, and camera are oriented along mutually orthogonal axes.
‘783 discloses this missing feature by disclosing an optical scattering system in which the illumination axis, detection axis and sample axis intersect at right angles (e.g., See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of ‘783 into ‘929 for the purpose of separating the optical paths and improve scattered light detection because this orientation reduces direct light reaching the camera and improves detection of scattered light by the object.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrot, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347929 A1 (‘929), as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, from above, and further in view of Hemphill, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0057164 A1 (‘164).
As per claim 8, ‘929 does not specifically disclose that the resin is photocurable in response to exposure to a wavelength of light between 100 nm and 500 nm.
‘164 discloses a photocurable resin cured by light in the 100 nm to 500 nm range (e.g., See ‘164; [0065]) and ‘929 discloses measuring light having a wavelength different from the polymerization light so that the measuring light does not cure the resin (e.g., See ‘929; [0085] and [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of ‘164 into ‘929 for the purpose of using light between 100 nm and 500 nm to cure the resin, while using different measuring light that does not cure the resin, thereby allowing the object to be monitored without the measuring light unintentionally curing the resin.
As per claim 11, ‘929 does not specifically disclose that the resin is photocurable in response to exposure to a wavelength of light between 100 nm and 500 nm, and that the known wavelength of light from the measuring light source is between 550 nm and 1000 nm.
‘164 discloses a photocurable resin cured by light in the 100 nm to 500 nm range (e.g., See ‘164; [0065]) and ‘929 discloses measuring light having a wavelength different from the polymerization light so that the measuring light does not cure the resin (e.g., See ‘929; [0085] and [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of ‘164 into ‘929 for the purpose of using light between 100 nm and 500 nm to cure the resin, while using different measuring light that does not cure the resin, thereby allowing the object to be monitored without the measuring light unintentionally curing the resin.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrot, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347929 A1 (‘929), as applied to claim 14, from above, and further in view of Liu, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0020922 A1 (‘922).
As per claim 15, ‘922 discloses the utilization of an optical filter between the resin container and the camera (e.g., See ‘929; [0145]), but does not specifically disclose that the optical filter is a bandpass filter that passes light having a wavelength between 620 nm and 630 nm centered about the known wavelength of the light from the measuring light source.
‘922 discloses these missing features (e.g., See ‘922; [0044] – [0046], which disclose Fabry-Perot filter channels on a camera sensor that pass selected wavelength bands, including channels centered at 624 nm and 630 nm with bandwidths of 10 to 15 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of ‘922 into ‘929 for the purpose using a narrow bandpass filter matched to the measuring light, thereby reducing unwanted light in the camera image.
Claims 12 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrot, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347929 A1 (‘929), as applied to claims 12 and 18, respectively, from above, and further in view of Bentz, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0104946 A1 (‘946).
As per claim 12, ‘929 does not specifically disclose that at least one of the known wavelength of the light from the light source is between red and near-infrared and the wavelength is between 620 nm and 630 nm.
‘946 discloses tunable optical imaging light from 485 nm to 850 nm, a range that includes 620 nm to 630 nm (e.g., See ‘946; [0052]), and ‘946 also discloses use of red light at 633 nm for optical imaging based on scattering and absorption (e.g., See ‘946; [0036] and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘946 into ‘929 for the purpose of using a red measurement light that is suitable for scattering based imaging thereby improving image contrast.
As per claim 19, ‘929 does not specifically disclose that the assembled model representative of the object is an isosurface representative of the object.
‘946 discloses this feature (e.g., See ‘946; [0016] – [0019] and [0047], which disclose using isosurfaces generated from reconstructed three-dimensional optical images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘946 into ‘929 for the purpose of presenting the reconstructed object in an easier to view form, thereby improving the review of the object.
As per claim 20, ‘929 does not specifically disclose that the three-dimensional scattering density information includes information associated with the brightness of light scattered by the object.
‘946 discloses these missing features by disclosing boundary measurements of light intensity and reconstructing scattering information as a function of position from those measurements (e.g., See ‘946; [0036] and [0045] – [0047]).
As per claim 21, ‘929 does not specifically disclose that the output of the reconstruction engine is displayed to an operator, as (a) a graphical representation of the isosurface and the model, or (b) as a numerical representation of the difference between the model and the isosurface.
‘946 discloses this feature (e.g., See ‘946; [0016] – [0019] and [0047], which disclose displaying graphical isosurfaces from reconstructed three-dimensional optical images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘946 into ‘929 for the purpose of showing the reconstructed object in a form than an operator can compare with the model, thereby forming an easier review process.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 10,647,061 B2, which discloses 3D objects being formed by projecting computed light patterns through rotting photocurable resin;
(2) US 11,919,244 B2, which discloses using optical sensing through resin to monitor the cure state and adjusting curing light;
(3) US 11,809,161 B2, which discloses optimizing computer axial lithography patterns for curing resin in a rotating container;
(4) US 2022/0274326 A1, which discloses volumetric printing of scattering particle loaded photo responsive materials using tomographic projections;
(5) US 2020/0001525 A1, which discloses adjusting photoreactive 3D printing settings during printing using real time sensor feedback; and
(6) US 10,688,560 B2, which discloses using visual and infrared cameras for in situ additive manufacturing inspection and process correction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 June 12, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights