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 of Group II in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1, 36-40, 43, 45-48, 50, 58, 137, 161, 171, and 173 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 21 and 27, the claims each recite “to which it is attached” but it is not clear what “it” refers to here, as “it” is an indefinite pronoun and could be read to refer to any number of different elements within the claim.
Claims 28-29 depend from claim 27 and are likewise rejected under the same rationale as the above.
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, and 168 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, 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 and 27, Shkolnik/Wynne discloses the subject matter of claims 19-20, 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, and 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, 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).
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).
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
Prosecution Insights