DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 invention and/or species, and corresponding claims (41-48) is acknowledged. The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 48 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 48, the limitation “only at least one” is unclear as to the meaning of only. This is a broad range (“at least one”) or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation (“only”) that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim). The resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (US 20020164069 A1).
In reference to claim 41, Nagano discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
1438
1500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a build surface which is adapted to receive a molding compound; and
an irradiation arrangement which is adapted to selectively irradiate the molding compound on the build surface with electromagnetic radiation in order to produce a workpiece by means of an additive layer manufacturing activity (“exposure head 42” [0140]),
wherein the irradiation arrangement comprises a plurality of irradiation units which are arranged stationarily within the irradiation arrangement and are unmovable parallel to the build surface (“exposure head 42 is fixed by a fixing portion… exposure head 42 has a number of exposure units 18A (100 in FIG. 12), arranged in an array (10 rows×10 columns), for scanning and exposing the region of a predetermined area” [0140]),
wherein the irradiation units have at least one surface emitter unit having in each case at least one laser beam-emitting diode and/or a laser beam-emitting semi-conductor (“GaN semiconductor laser” [0141]),
wherein the irradiation units are adapted to irradiate a respective associated individual region of the build surface (“exposing the region of a predetermined area” [0140])
PNG
media_image2.png
140
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig 2, shown above and see “since the exposure unit can be moved by the XY positioning mechanism, and the entire resin surface can be exposed a plurality of times while the exposure unit is shifted, by limiting a region to be exposed by one exposure unit at one time, spatial resolution of the region can be improved thus making modeling with high accuracy possible.” [P0202])
Nagano indicates that the exposure unit is movable. Shifting the exposure unit would move the area under each laser. Thus while Nagano does not describe that the region is changed, it would be obvious to a person of skill in the art that if the laser is moved the associated region position would change.
In reference to claim 42, Nagano is silent regarding the cross-sectional area of emitted beams of the irradiation units each, however, the “region” refers to an portion of the build surface undergoing an intended use of the device and does not structurally limit the claimed device. Thus, Nagano meets the claim.
Furthermore, Nagano specifically discloses that “the entire surface can be exposed in a short time … a region to be exposed per one exposure unit when the entire surface is exposed at one time by using 100 sets of the exposure units 18A equals to {fraction (1/100)} of a region to be exposed when the entire surface is exposed by one single exposure unit 18A” [0146]; and
“it is possible to limit the area of a region that is supposed to be scanned and exposed by one single exposure unit.” [0147].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the emitted beams of the irradiation units each have a cross-sectional area which corresponds to between 2% and 170% of the area of the respective associated individual region in order to reduce the time required for exposure.
In reference to claim 43-44, Nagano discloses “since the exposure unit can be moved by the XY positioning mechanism” [P0202]
In reference to claim 45, Nagano discloses “condensing lens 46” [0141]. Using a lens to focus optics is obvious.
Claim 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano (US 20020164069 A1) in view of Jones (US 20210268789 A1).
In reference to claim 48, Nagano further discloses wherein irradiation units are each so configured that the beams are emitted at an unchangeable angle (Fig 13 shows the beam is emitted from a fixed laser emitter) and wherein beams strike the build surface at an angle of from 20° to 160°, however, Nagano shows that the laser is movable using a reflective mirror (element 70 in Fig 13) (Emission occurs at a static position. Optics are used to steer the beam after emission).
Nagano is believed to meet the claim alone, however, in view of the invention illustration it is believed that Applicant intends that the beam directed above the material worked upon is not moved, when this is the case:
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, production of three-dimensional workpieces by means of a plurality of irradiation units (Fig 1, Abstract), Jones discloses a similar device (Fig 1, Abstract). Jones teaches than instead of using scanning lasers, an array of tightly packed lasers can be used (See Fig 1B and 2 and [0004] and [0006]), which comprises wherein beams strike the build surface at an unchangeable angle of from 20° to 160° (Fig 1B and 2).
The combination would be achievable by modifying the irradiation arrangement of Nagano to use an array of tightly packed lasers can be used (See Fig 1B and 2 and [0004] and [0006]), which comprises wherein beams strike the build surface at an unchangeable angle of from 20° to 160° (Fig 1B and 2) as taught by Jones.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device such that the beams strike the build surface at an unchangeable angle of from 20° to 160°.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been specifically motivated to modify the irradiation arrangement of Nagano to use an array of tightly packed lasers can be used (See Fig 1B and 2 and [0004] and [0006]), which comprises wherein beams strike the build surface at an unchangeable angle of from 20° to 160° (Fig 1B and 2) as taught by Jones because Jones teaches that this allows for a “melting process time for the desired pattern may be less than a second, which is at least two orders of magnitude faster than current scanning processes” [0018]; and in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; achieve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and/or apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results
In reference to claim 47, Nagano discloses “since the exposure unit can be moved by the XY positioning mechanism” [P0202]. Nagano does not illustrate vertical motion.
Jones, cited above, provides vertical motion in order to control the optics (“
The distance D between the array of optical fibers 109 (i.e. the ends of the optical fibers 109) and the powder bed 130 may be controlled by moving the support 170 in the Z direction. The distance D may depend on the type of laser beams 120 emitted by the optical fibers 109 (e.g. whether the laser beams 120 are collimated or divergent, and the amount of divergence), the average output power of each diode laser 103, the pulse energy of each diode laser 103, the pulse width of each diode laser 103, and or the beam distribution (e.g. Gaussian, top hat, etc.)” [P0021]).
Therefore it would be obvious to integrate vertical motion in order to similarly provide optical control in the primary reference.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited by applied prior art for further background. As a whole these references and appropriate secondary and tertiary references are believed sufficient to provide the skilled reader with the opportunity to learn about the technical background requisite to appreciate the body of knowledge needed to understand and communicate regarding the technology at issue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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.
Examiner has utilized USPTO approved search resources, such as EIC or external tools, beyond routine search tools and/or leveraged experts in the field. Examiner has cited and explained the relevance of prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure. Examiner has provided detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed. When citing the prior art examiner has used annotations clearly in prior art rejections such as, using item-to-item matching to the prior art, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art, and/or clearly explaining examiner’s interpretation as to how a citation maps to claim language especially when there is not a one-to-one matching of terms.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
