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 3, 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 3, “the axle distance” should say “the axial distance” for claim language consistency.
Claim 4, line 3, “the axle distance” should say “the axial distance” for claim language consistency.
Claim 4, line 5, “the axle distance” should say “the axial distance” for claim language consistency.
Claim 8, line 5, “the axle distances” should say “the axial distances” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1 recites “a rotation unit for carrying and rotating the printing bottle at a preset speed” which includes the structural generic placeholder of “a rotation unit” associated with the functional limitation of “carrying and rotating the printing bottle at a preset speed”. The specification defines corresponding structure for the claimed generic placeholder of "a rotation unit" to include a moving platform ([0051]).
Claim 1 recites “a focusing unit for enabling an energy beam to pass through at least one preset position of the printing bottle” which includes the structural generic placeholder of “a focusing unit” associated with the functional limitation of “enabling an energy beam to pass through at least one preset position of the printing bottle”. The specification defines corresponding structure for the claimed generic placeholder of " a focusing unit " to include a projector and a lens ([0063]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the rotation speed of the printing bottle” in lines 11-12. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a preset speed” from “rotating the printing bottle a preset speed” in line 3 or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that this limitation is referring to previous limitation in line 3.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the wavelength” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loterie et al. (US 20200384682 A1; hereafter Loterie).
Regarding claim 1, Loterie discloses a volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device (Fig. 1A; [0007, 0096]), comprising:
a printing bottle (Fig. 1A; [0141]; container 13 maybe a cylindrical vial) for containing bioink ([0096]; photoresponsive material loaded with biological cells);
a rotation unit ([0140]; rotational configuration comprising rotating platform 14) for carrying and rotating the printing bottle ([0140]; container 13 is mounted on rotating platform 14) at a preset speed ([0132]; the rotation speed of the rotating part in the different embodiments may be, but is not limited to, one revolution per second);
a focusing unit ([0037, 0140]; projection unit) for enabling an energy beam ([0037, 0140]; controllable patterns of light are beams of light) to pass through at least one preset position of the printing bottle ([0032]; patterns of light propagate through volume of photoresponsive material), so that the bioink in the at least one preset position can be cured at the same time to form a three-dimensional object (Fig. 1B; [0007]), wherein the energy beam comprises a plurality of two-dimensional patterns ([0071]; light patterns maybe planar) that are dynamically varied ([0173]; light patterns are dynamically adjusted during the fabrication procedure), and when the energy beam passes through the at least one preset position of the printing bottle, each of the plurality of the two-dimensional patterns is perpendicular to a rotation axis of the printing bottle ([0126]; the spatially modulated light patterns are irradiated following an optical axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the build region);
and a control unit ([0045]; controller) electrically connected to the rotation unit and the focusing unit ([0045]; controller operatively associated with said build volume and said projection unit, such that the build volume is rotated about a rotation axis), wherein the control unit determines projection modes which are matched with the preset rotation speed of the printing bottle according to a Radon transformation formula ([0011, 0038]; back-projections are computed using a Radon-transform and used to define said controlled patterns of light), and then controls the focusing unit to output the energy beam in the projection modes ([0045]; controller illuminates said build volume with a sequence of patterns of light until the three-dimensional object is formed).
Regarding claim 14, Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 1, wherein an energy source of the energy beam is at least one of a light emitting diode ([0043]; LED) or a laser emitter ([0043]; laser).
Regarding claim 16, Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 1, wherein a wavelength of the energy beam is 390-780nm ([0158, 0163]; projection unit can output at different wavelengths, wherein the wavelength can be 532 nm).
Regarding claim 17, Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 1, wherein the printing bottle is configured to be rotated clockwise or counter-clockwise ([0140]; container 13 may be rotated in one or both rotation directions) when the energy beam passes through the printing bottle.
Regarding claim 18, Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 1, wherein the printing bottle is made of transparent plastic ([0141]; light-transparent plastic) or glass ([0141]; glass).
Regarding claim 19, Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 1, wherein the bioink comprises a polymer precursor ([0018]; photoresponsive material may comprise prepolymer) to be photocured and cells ([0068]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loterie et al. (US 20200384682 A1; hereafter Loterie) as applied to claim 1, in view of Favalora et al. (US 20250074001 A1; hereafter Favalora).
Regarding claim 2, Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 1, wherein the rotation unit is provided with a moving platform (Fig. 6; [0165]; motion platform 61), and the rotation unit adjusts spatial positions of the energy beam and the printing bottle by changing axial distances of a Z-axis of the moving platform (Fig. 6; [0165]; motion platform 61 can be controllably translated along a vertical support).
Loterie does not disclose the rotation unit changes axial distance of an X-axis and a Y-axis of the moving platform.
However, in the analogous art Favalora teaches a volumetric three-dimensional printing device ([0081]; volumetric 3D printing assembly) comprising a printing container ([0054]; cartridge 14) and a handling unit ([0091, 0113]; print carriage 74 and cartridge flipping assembly 120) for carrying and rotating the printing container ([0091, 0113]), wherein the handling unit adjusts a position of the printing container along an X-axis, a Y-axis and a Z-axis ([0100]; movement of print carriage 74 provides positioning and translation of cartridge 14 in X, Y and Z directions). An adjustment of the position of the printing container along the X-axis, a Y-axis and a Z-axis results in changes in the axial distances between a light source (Fig. 6; [0095]; light source 82) and the printing container (Fig. 6).
Loterie and Favalora are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of volumetric three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Loterie with the teachings of Favalora to provide the rotation unit changes axial distance of an X-axis and a Y-axis of the moving platform. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Furthermore, the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment. See MPEP 2144.04 V(D). Doing so would provide significant improvements in throughput and efficiency of the volumetric three-dimensional printing device (Favalora [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 2.
Modified Loterie does not explicitly disclose the rotation unit adjusts the energy beam to be closer to or further away from the printing bottle by changing the axial distance of the X-axis of the moving platform.
However, Favalora further teaches an adjustment of the position of the printing container along the X-axis, a Y-axis and a Z-axis results in changes in the axial distances between a light source (Fig. 6; [0095]; light source 82) and the printing container (Fig. 6).
Loterie and Favalora are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of volumetric three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Loterie with the teachings of Favalora to provide the rotation unit adjusts the energy beam to be closer to or further away from the printing bottle by changing the axial distance of the X-axis of the moving platform. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Furthermore, the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment. See MPEP 2144.04 V(D). Doing so would provide significant improvements in throughput and efficiency of the volumetric three-dimensional printing device (Favalora [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 2, wherein Loterie further discloses the rotation unit adjusts the energy beam to a position closer to an upper portion or a lower portion of the printing bottle by changing the axial distance of the Z-axis of the moving platform (Fig. 6; [0165]; motion platform 61 can be controllably translated along a vertical support).
Modified Loterie does not explicitly disclose the rotation unit adjusts the energy beam to a position closer to a left portion or a right portion of the printing bottle by changing the axial distance of the Y-axis of the moving platform.
However, Favalora further teaches an adjustment of the position of the printing container along the X-axis, a Y-axis and a Z-axis results in changes in the axial distances between a light source (Fig. 6; [0095]; light source 82) and the printing container (Fig. 6).
Loterie and Favalora are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of volumetric three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Loterie with the teachings of Favalora to provide the rotation unit adjusts the energy beam to a position closer to a left portion or a right portion of the printing bottle by changing the axial distance of the Y-axis of the moving platform. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Furthermore, the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment. See MPEP 2144.04 V(D). Doing so would provide significant improvements in throughput and efficiency of the volumetric three-dimensional printing device (Favalora [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 2, wherein Loterie further discloses the rotation unit further comprises a rotation platform disposed below the printing bottle (Fig. 1A; rotating platform 14 below container 13).
Regarding claim 6, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 5, wherein Loterie further discloses the focusing unit comprises a projector ([0037]; projection unit) and a lens ([0143]; projection unit may incorporate lens) which are arranged on one side of the printing bottle from far to near ([0143]; cylindrical lens for correcting distortion cause by a cylindrical container), the projector and the rotation platform are electrically connected to the control unit ([0045]; controller operatively associated with said build volume and said projection unit, such that the build volume is rotated about a rotation axis), and the projector projects the energy beam through one side thereof that is closer to the lens ([0143]; cylindrical/relay lens would have to be between container and projection unit in order to correct distortion/accurately project the light beam to the container, so that the projection unit would project from a side closer to the lens).
Regarding claim 7, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 5, wherein Loterie further discloses the moving platform is connected to the rotation platform (Fig. 6), and the moving platform drives the rotation platform to move when moving, so that the printing bottle is driven to move (Fig. 6; [0165]; motion platform 61 can be controllably translated along a vertical support).
Regarding claim 8, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 7, wherein the moving platform is provided with a Z-axis moving slide rail (Fig. 6; [0165]; motion platform 61 can be controllably translated along a vertical support rail 62), and the moving platform is driven to move in directions of the Z-axis moving slide rail for changing the axial distances of the Z-axis of the moving platform (Fig. 6; [0165]; motion platform 61 can be controllably translated along a vertical support rail 62).
Modified Loterie does not explicitly disclose the moving platform is provided with an X-axis moving slide rail and a Y-axis moving slide rail, and the moving platform is driven to move in directions of the X-axis moving slide rail and the Y-axis moving slide rail for changing the axial distances of the X-axis and the Y-axis of the moving platform, respectively.
However, Favalora further teaches an adjustment of the position of the printing container along the X-axis, a Y-axis and a Z-axis results in changes in the axial distances between a light source (Fig. 6; [0095]; light source 82) and the printing container (Fig. 6). The position is adjusted in the X, Y and Z axis by translation along tracks (Fig. 6; [0100]).
Loterie and Favalora are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of volumetric three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Loterie with the teachings of Favalora to provide the moving platform is provided with an X-axis moving slide rail and a Y-axis moving slide rail, and the moving platform is driven to move in directions of the X-axis moving slide rail and the Y-axis moving slide rail for changing the axial distances of the X-axis and the Y-axis of the moving platform, respectively. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Furthermore, the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment. See MPEP 2144.04 V(D). Doing so would provide significant improvements in throughput and efficiency of the volumetric three-dimensional printing device (Favalora [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 6.
Modified Loterie does not explicitly disclose the printing bottle and the rotation platform are connected with each other in a detachable manner, so that printing bottles with different sizes can be replaced.
However, Favalora further teaches the printing container and the handling unit are connected with each other in a detachable manner ([0069]; cartridge 14 may be removed from the printer and replaced with another cartridge 14), so that printing containers with different sizes can be replaced ([0088]; cartridges 14 are sized to accommodate the size of 3D objects to be printed, such that cartridges of different sizes can be used).
Loterie and Favalora are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of volumetric three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Loterie with the teachings of Favalora to provide the printing bottle and the rotation platform are connected with each other in a detachable manner, so that printing bottles with different sizes can be replaced. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Furthermore, the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art recognized need for the adjustment. See MPEP 2144.04 V(D). Doing so would provide significant improvements in throughput and efficiency of the volumetric three-dimensional printing device (Favalora [0008]).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loterie et al. (US 20200384682 A1; hereafter Loterie), in view of Favalora et al. (US 20250074001 A1; hereafter Favalora) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Matheu (US 20220212407 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 9, wherein Loterie further discloses lenses of different types are selected or combined to accommodate requirement for different distances of the energy beam to the bioink ([0143]; one skilled in the art will understand that the projection unit 10 may incorporate additional optical elements, for example a cylindrical lens to correct for the distortion caused by a cylindrical container, or relay lenses to accurately project the light patterns inside the build volume).
Modified Loterie does not explicitly disclose lens of different focal lengths are selected or combined to accommodate requirement for different distances of the energy beam to the bioink.
However, in the analogous art Matheu teaches a three-dimensional bioprinting device ([0011]) wherein lens of different focal lengths ([0163, 0358]; one or more objective lens may have different focal lengths) are selected or combined to accommodate requirement for different distances of an energy beam to a bioink ([0358]; the different focal lengths may be configured to project the first projection and the at least one additional projection at different depths within the medium).
Loterie and Matheu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of bioprinting three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Loterie with the teachings of Matheu to provide lens of different focal lengths maybe selected or combined to accommodate requirement for different distances of the energy beam to the bioink. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of tissues and organs by volumetric three-dimensional printing.
Regarding claim 11, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 9, wherein Loterie further discloses a distance between the printing bottle and the projector is adjusted by the mobile platform (Fig. 6; [0165]; motion platform 61 can be controllably translated along a vertical support rail 62).
While Loterie further discloses lenses of different types are selected or combined to accommodate requirement for different distances of the energy beam to the bioink ([0143]; one skilled in the art will understand that the projection unit 10 may incorporate additional optical elements, for example a cylindrical lens to correct for the distortion caused by a cylindrical container, or relay lenses to accurately project the light patterns inside the build volume), modified Loterie does not explicitly disclose a lens with a focal length adapted to control a focal plane of a projected image is selected, so that the energy beam is focused on the focal plane.
However, in the analogous art Matheu teaches a three-dimensional bioprinting device ([0011]) wherein lens of different focal lengths ([0163, 0358]; one or more objective lens may have different focal lengths) are selected or combined to accommodate requirement for different distances of an energy beam to a bioink ([0358]; the different focal lengths may be configured to project the first projection and the at least one additional projection at different depths within the medium).
Loterie and Matheu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of bioprinting three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Loterie with the teachings of Matheu to provide a lens with a focal length adapted to control a focal plane of a projected image maybe selected, so that the energy beam is focused on the focal plane. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of tissues and organs by volumetric three-dimensional printing.
Regarding claim 12, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 9, wherein Loterie further discloses printing requirements of three-dimensional objects of different sizes are met by selecting lenses of different focal types ([0143]; one skilled in the art will understand that the projection unit 10 may incorporate additional optical elements, for example a cylindrical lens to correct for the distortion caused by a cylindrical container, or relay lenses to accurately project the light patterns inside the build volume).
Modified Loterie does not explicitly disclose printing requirements of three-dimensional objects of different sizes are met by employing printing bottles of different sizes, selecting lenses of different focal lengths, and changing the axial distances of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis of the moving platform.
However, as outlined in the rejections of claims 2 and 9 above, Favalora teaches when printing different three-dimensional objects that printing containers with different sizes can be used ([0088]) and the axial distance along the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis can be changed ([0100]). Furthermore, in the analogous art Matheu teaches a three-dimensional bioprinting device ([0011]) wherein lens of different focal lengths ([0163, 0358]; one or more objective lens may have different focal lengths) are selected or combined to accommodate requirement for different distances of an energy beam to a bioink ([0358]; the different focal lengths may be configured to project the first projection and the at least one additional projection at different depths within the medium).
Loterie and Matheu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of bioprinting three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Loterie with the teachings of Matheu to provide printing requirements of three-dimensional objects of different sizes are met by employing printing bottles of different sizes, selecting lenses of different focal lengths, and changing the axial distances of the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis of the moving platform. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of tissues and organs by volumetric three-dimensional printing.
Regarding claim 13, modified Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 9, wherein Loterie further discloses an intensity of the energy beam that is passing through the printing bottle is controlled by adjusting an intensity of the energy beam projected by the projector ([0127]) and employing lenses of different focal types ([0143]; one skilled in the art will understand that the projection unit 10 may incorporate additional optical elements, for example a cylindrical lens to correct for the distortion caused by a cylindrical container, or relay lenses to accurately project the light patterns inside the build volume).
Modified Loterie does not explicitly disclose changing the axial distance of the X-axis of the moving platform and employing lenses of different focal lengths.
However, as outlined in the rejections of claims 2 and 9 above, Favalora teaches when printing the axial distance along the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis can be changed ([0100]). Furthermore, in the analogous art Matheu teaches a three-dimensional bioprinting device ([0011]) wherein lens of different focal lengths ([0163, 0358]; one or more objective lens may have different focal lengths) are selected or combined to accommodate requirement for different distances of an energy beam to a bioink ([0358]; the different focal lengths may be configured to project the first projection and the at least one additional projection at different depths within the medium).
Loterie and Matheu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of bioprinting three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Loterie with the teachings of Matheu to provide changing the axial distance of the X-axis of the moving platform and employing lenses of different focal lengths. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of tissues and organs by volumetric three-dimensional printing.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loterie et al. (US 20200384682 A1; hereafter Loterie) as applied to claim 1, in view of Ouyang et al. (US 20220324163 A1; hereafter Ouyang).
Regarding claim 15, Loterie discloses the volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device according to claim 1.
While Loterie discloses the projection unit may incorporate additional optical elements, such as a lens, Loterie does not explicitly disclose the energy beam passes through the printing bottle after being focused by a convex lens or a plane mirror.
However, in the analogous art Ouyang teaches a volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting device (Fig. 14; [0010]) comprising a build material container ([0034]) and a projection unit ([0025]) projecting a light beam ([0074]; outgoing light of the projector), wherein the light beam passes through the build material container ([0074]; outgoing light is projected into the container through the optical path conversion system) after being focused by a plane mirror ([0075]; mirror).
Loterie and Ouyang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of volumetric three-dimensional printing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Loterie with the teachings of Ouyang to provide the energy beam passes through the printing bottle after being focused by a convex lens or a plane mirror. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the build material container to remain fixed so that the shape of the printing structure is more stable (Ouyang [0135]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martínez Fraiz et al. (US 20230347580 A1) discloses volumetric three-dimensional bioprinting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights