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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ALI (EP 3107703-of record).
A method of printing a 3-D sample, comprising:
projecting a first image, received by a light engine ([0026], [0137], 62) coupled to
a light source [0027] and a lens from a computer [0049], to create a first photocured layer from photocurable resin sandwiched between a lower surface of a transparent membrane (58, 60-Fig.1a; [0025]), coupled to an actuator (66-Fig.1c, [0030]) and a pivot joint (hinges 74a, 74b, [0032]), and an upper surface of a printing sample (78) secured to a platform (80) coupled to a first vertical stage (52); and then
rotating, by the actuator, a portion of the membrane downward by phi degrees about the pivot joint [0029], while simultaneously translating, by the first vertical stage, the platform downward until none of the membrane contacts the first photocured layer ([0033], [0034], see Figs.1c-1d).
Regarding claim 2, discloses rotating the portion of the membrane upward and translating, by the first vertical stage, the platform upward [0132].
Regarding claim 3, discloses projecting second image from the computer to create a second photocured layer [0036], [0081].
Regarding claim 4, discloses the resin is provided under the membrane and in the container (44) [0025]-[0026].
Regarding claim 5, discloses the membrane (film 60) comprises an upward-extending rim circumscribing a top surface (Figs.1a-1d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues ALI reference does not teach “simultaneously translating”
limitation of claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. ALI discloses the computer executable
instructions cause the build platform (46) to move downward along the build (z) axis by a defined layer thickness following the solidification of the layer of the solidifiable material [0024], [0066], [0067], [0088], Fig.1c-1d. Therefore, ALI teaches rotating about the pivot joint, while simultaneously translating, by the first vertical stage, the platform downward until none of the membrane contacts the first photocured layer (Fig.1c-1d) as claimed.
Applicant argues claim 1 requires rotating the membrane portion downward into the resin, toward the platform.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., rotating the membrane portion downward into the resin, toward the platform) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant claim 1 claims “rotating, by the actuator, a portion of the membrane downward by phi degrees about the pivot joint, while simultaneously translating, by the first vertical stage, the platform downward until none of the membrane contacts the first photocured layer” NOT rotating the membrane portion downward into the resin, toward the platform.
Applicant argues ALI does not disclose platform translation continues “until none of the membrane contacts the first photocured layer”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. ALI discloses the platform downward until none of the membrane contacts the first photocured layer ([0033], [0034], see Figs.1c-1d). Furthermore, ALI discloses the build platform (46) will descend by whatever distance is required to separate the exposed object surface (82) from the film (60) or rigid or semi-rigid solidification substrate (58) if no film is present [0035], [0039].
Applicant argues ALI does not disclose rotation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. ALI discloses the hinges (74a) and (74b) define an axis of rotation for the solidification substrate assembly (57) [0029].
Applicant argues ALI does not disclose a motor, shaft, actuator, or stage connected to container (44).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a motor, shaft, actuator, or stage connected to container (44)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 STELLA KIM YI whose telephone number is (571)270-5123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
STELLA YI
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/STELLA K YI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights