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 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) 19-22, 24, 26-29, 31-32, 168, and 176-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik et al. (US 2010/0125356), hereinafter Shkolnik, in view of Wynne et al. (US 2020/0001525), hereinafter Wynne.
Regarding claim 19, Shkolnik discloses a three-dimensional printer apparatus comprising: (a) an array of a plurality of projector systems (pattern generators 102, 104; par. 0089-0090; par. 0120 explains that any number of pattern generators N can be used), each of the projector systems associated with a projection area (e.g., Fig. 4C), each of the projector systems positioned adjacent to at least one other of the projector systems without a space between a projection area of each of the projector systems and a projection area of an adjacent system (Fig. 4C shows an overlap in the projection areas, thus there is no space between the projection areas), and each of the projector systems comprising a projector (pattern generator) and a projector alignment system (par. 0109);
(b) a visual alignment system configured to individually align each of the projectors (par. 0109);
(c) a cooling system (e.g., par. 0091, 0169), and
(d) a base plate (910, Fig. 9A) to which each of the projector systems is mounted (par. 0274-0275).
Shkolnik does not explicitly disclose that the cooling system cools the projectors, instead using the cooling system to cool the thermoplastic material in order for it to harden (par. 0169).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pattern generators would be warm from use, as they are electronic devices that emit heat when electricity flows through them.
Additionally, Wynne discloses a cooling system that can be used for the image projection system(s) (Wynne, par. 0114), demonstrating that such a cooling system was known in the art for protection of the image projection system(s) from exposure due to high temperature or lack of air flow. Accordingly, in order to likewise account for an increase in temperature or lack of air flow in the system of Shkolnik above, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have incorporated a cooling system such as that is described in Wynne, into the system of Shkolnik above, as to have likewise advantageously avoided the equipment from overheating during use.
Regarding claim 20 and 179-180, Shkolnik/Wynne discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses (Shkolnik, par. 0278) a support plate system with different assemblies with linkages to move the support plate holding the pattern generators.
Regarding claims 21, 27, and 183-185, Shkolnik/Wynne discloses the subject matter of claims 19-20 and 178 (below), and this subject matter is considered inherent or implied, or in the alternative, variable based on the operating conditions of the device, thus being capable of being met without modification.
Regarding claims 22, 24, 26, 28-29, Shkolnik/Wynne discloses the subject matter of claims 20 and 27, and further discloses an arrangement that includes rotational elements/plates (Shkolnik, par. 0278) that would require two plates and rotational motion of a plate as to move the support plate in a controlled fashion, as described.
Regarding claims 31-32 and 178, Shkolnik/Wynne discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that there is a camera (imager 106; S, par. 0109-0110), and a gantry system coupled to the apparatus and to which the camera is coupled (Shkolnik, par. 0286; support plate 112; Fig. 15), the gantry system movably positionable with respect to the array of projector systems (102, 104). See Figs. 1A-1B and Fig. 15.
Claim 178 is in independent form, but is drafted as a combination of claims 19 and 31-32.
Regarding claim 168, Shkolnik/Wynne discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that the pattern generators can project UV or visible light (Shkolnik, par. 0107).
Regarding claim 177, Shkolnik/Wynne discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that there can be any number of pattern generators used (Shkolnik, par. 0120), such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used three or any number of projectors as to have achieved the desired resultant image.
Regarding claims 181-182, Shkolnik/Wynne discloses the subject matter of claim 178, and further discloses that the gantry system can move the camera between the projectors and above the projectors (see Shkolnik, Figs. 11-12, 15) and further discloses that there can be any number of pattern generators used (Shkolnik, par. 0120) such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used three or any number of projectors as to have achieved the desired resultant image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed and referred to below.
With respect to point A, regarding claim 19, the “visual alignment system” is claimed as “configured to individually align each of the projectors” and the claim also requires “a projector alignment system.” Applicant argues that this second feature is missing from the reference but this is not the case. The motors provided in at least Shkolnik, par. 0278 would allow for the projectors to move themselves in accordance with given instructions and would read upon the claimed “projector alignment system.” See also Figs. 1A-1B which show the projector systems (102, 104) in two different alignments. Examiner further notes that par. 0278 refers to Fig. 9A, which is described further in par. 0274 and includes mounting plate (910), but the structure described here would provide the means of alignment of the actual projectors/pattern generators, thus meeting this claim limitation.
Furthermore, there is no requirement that the same mapping be used in claim 20, or any dependent claims as in claim 19. Claim 19 is evaluated separately from claim 20 and analysis of claim 20 can build upon what was included in claim 19. With respect to point B, the support plate assembly (910) in Fig. 9A-9B clearly shows this element with respect to the projectors – not the build plate. Accordingly, this argument is not found persuasive.
With respect to points E/G, the term “footprint” is also extremely broad and does not appear to have any specific definition provided. There is no “footprint” if the elements are supported by other elements or suspended by other elements above the ground. The projector alignment system is read to include the elements that align the projector, which would presumably be located within the structure of the projector or something supporting said projector. None of these would have a “footprint” if not in contact with the surface or ground, under BRI. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
With respect to point C, the DLP projector comes from the Shkolnik reference and would include DLP chips. Wynne, par. 0114 states that there are “cooling systems within the image projection systems” which is not solely related to the build object, as is argued by Applicant. Additionally, the “configured to direct forced convection onto a DLP chip” is an intended use, not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to point D, one of ordinary skill in the art would have still found such a limitation obvious over the cited references. Further, there is nothing precluding the addition of more projectors to the system as to have achieved a different result image.
With respect to point F, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The gantry is shown in the claimed configuration as described above. The camera must only be attached to something that is capable of movement in the claimed manner.
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 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
