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
Claims 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 28, 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,745. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated.
12,203,745 18/970,907
1. (Allowed) A 3D metrology system for determining a topography of a surface of a powder bed of a powder bed fusion type 3D printer, the system comprising:
a fringe projection system that projects a set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns on a surface of a powder bed simultaneously, each one of the fringe patterns in the set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns being generated by a different wavelength than each of the other fringe patterns in the set to provide a composite multi-fringe projection projected on the surface;
an imaging system that collects at least one of reflected and scattered light from the composite multi-fringe projection projected on the surface to provide imaging data;
and a processing system configured to: determine a phase map of the surface from the imaging data;
and determine a topography of the surface based on the phase map.
1. (New) A 3D printer system comprising:
a fringe projection system that includes an optical system configured to project a fringe pattern on a surface of an object at an oblique angle to the surface via the optical system;
an imaging system that includes at least one optical member configured to collect at least one of reflected and scattered light from the fringe projected on the surface via the at least one optical member to provide imaging data;
and a processing system configured to: determine a phase map of the surface from the imaging data;
and determine a topography of the surface based on the phase map.
2. (Allowed) The 3D metrology system of claim 1, wherein each fringe pattern in the set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns has a different fringe phase, and wherein a known phase difference exists between each of the fringe patterns in the set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns.
3. (New) The system of claim 1, wherein the fringe projection system is configured to project a set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns on the surface of the object.
4. (New) The system of claim 3, wherein the set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns have a known phase difference.
3. (Allowed) The 3D metrology system of claim 1, wherein the composite multi-fringe projection is generated by five different wavelengths.
5. (New) The system of claim 3, wherein the set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns are generated by at least five different wavelengths.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Optical system configured to (Claim 1, 9)
One optical member configured to (Claim 1, 7, 9)
Processing system configured to (Claim 1, 9)
A driver configured to (Claim 2, 11)
Fringe projection system configured to (Claim 3, 12)
Imaging system is configured to (Claim 6, 10)
A drive device configured to (Claim 8, 15)
A powder supply device configured to (Claim 8, 15)
An irradiation device configured to (Claim 8, 15)
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019513577 A.
Claim 1
JP 2019513577 A discloses a 3D printer system comprising (See Translation, Page 7): a fringe projection system (See Page 73) that includes an optical system configured to project a fringe pattern (Fig. 3, 4, Ref. 317, 417) on a surface of an object (Fig. 3, 4, Ref. 308, 408) at an oblique angle (See Figs. 3-4) to the surface via the optical system; an imaging system that includes at least one optical member (Fig. 3, 4, Ref. 318, 418) configured to collect at least one of reflected and scattered (See Page 39) light from the fringe (See Page 73) projected on the surface (Fig. 3, 4, Ref. 308, 408) via the at least one optical member to provide imaging data (See Page 46); and a processing system (See Page 24) configured to: determine a phase map of the surface from the imaging data (See Page 85); and determine a topography of the surface based on the phase map (See Page 40).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
JP 2019513577 A discloses a driver (from controller) configured to move at least one of the object and the fringe projection system (See Pages 24, 80).
Claim 3
JP 2019513577 A discloses the fringe projection system is configured to project a set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns (overlapping tiles) on the surface of the object (See Page 24; overlapping tiles).
Claim 6
JP 2019513577 A discloses the imaging system (Fig. 3, Ref. 318) is configured to collect the at least one of reflected and scattered light from the surface (Fig. 3, Ref. 308) at an angle that is different from an angle of the projected fringe illuminated (Fig. 3, Ref. 317) on the surface (See the different angles in Fig. 3).
Claim 7
JP 2019513577 A discloses the at least one optical member of the imaging system includes an entrance optical member (Fig. 33, Ref. 3315; window), and wherein an optical axis of the entrance optical member (Fig. 33, Ref. 3315) is inclined at an angle (@ 180 degrees) that is different from an angle of the projected fringe (Fig. 33, Ref. 3321) illuminated on the surface (See Fig. 33, Light is projected on surface Ref. 3317 at @ 45 degrees).
Claim 8
JP 2019513577 A discloses a support device including a support surface (Fig. 3, Ref. 309); a drive device configured to move the support device such that a specific position on the support surface is moved along a moving direction (See Page 69; target surface may be translated vert, horizon, or angularly); a powder supply device configured to supply a powder to the moving support device to form a powder layer (See Page 5; Pages 72-73; layer dispensing mechanism); and an irradiation device (Fig. 3, Ref. 325) configured to irradiate at least a portion of the powder layer (Fig. 3, Ref. 308) with an energy beam to form at least a portion of a build object from the powder layer (See Page 37), wherein the fringe projection system projects (Fig. 3, Ref. 317) the fringe pattern on a surface of the powder layer (Fig. 3, Ref. 308).
Claim 9
JP 2019513577 A discloses a 3D printer system (See Translation, Page 7) comprising: a fringe projection system (See Page 73) that includes an optical system configured to project a fringe pattern (Fig. 3, 4, Ref. 317, 417) on a surface of an object (Fig. 3, 4, Ref. 308, 408); an imaging system that includes at least one optical member (Fig. 3, 4, Ref. 318, 418) configured to collect at least one of reflected and scattered (See Page 39) light from the fringe projected (See Page 73) on the surface to provide imaging data (See Page 46), the at least one optical member of the imaging system including an entrance optical member (Fig. 33, Ref. 3315; window), and an optical axis of the entrance optical member (Fig. 33, Ref. 3315) inclined at an angle (@ 180 degrees) that is different from an angle of the projected fringe (Fig. 33, Ref. 3321) illuminated on the surface (See Fig. 33, Light is projected on surface Ref. 3317 at @ 45 degrees); and a processing system (See Page 24) configured to: determine a phase map of the surface from the imaging data (See Page 85); and determine a topography of the surface based on the phase map (See Page 40).
Claim 10
JP 2019513577 A discloses the imaging system (Fig. 3, Ref. 318) is configured to collect the at least one of reflected and scattered light from the surface (Fig. 3, Ref. 308) at an angle that is different from an angle of the projected fringe illuminated (Fig. 3, Ref. 317) on the surface (See the different angles in Fig. 3).
Claim 11
JP 2019513577 A discloses a driver (from controller) configured to move at least one of the object and the fringe projection system (See Pages 24, 80).
Claim 12
JP 2019513577 A discloses the fringe projection system is configured to project a set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns (overlapping tiles) on the surface of the object (See Page 24; overlapping tiles).
Claim 15
JP 2019513577 A discloses a support device including a support surface (Fig. 3, Ref. 309); a drive device configured to move the support device such that a specific position on the support surface is moved along a moving direction (See Page 69; target surface may be translated vert, horizon, or angularly); a powder supply device configured to supply a powder to the moving support device to form a powder layer (See Page 5; Pages 72-73; layer dispensing mechanism); and an irradiation device (Fig. 3, Ref. 325) configured to irradiate at least a portion of the powder layer (Fig. 3, Ref. 308) with an energy beam to form at least a portion of a build object from the powder layer (See Page 37), wherein the fringe projection system projects (Fig. 3, Ref. 317) the fringe pattern on a surface of the powder layer (Fig. 3, Ref. 308).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019513577 A.
Claim 4, 13
JP 2019513577 A discloses the claimed invention except for the set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns have a known phase difference. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify JP 2019513577 A with known phase differences since it was well known in the art that overlapping fringe patterns with a known phase difference allows the system to accurately measure surface height, therefore improving clarity of the measured image. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 5, 14
JP 2019513577 A discloses the claimed invention except for the set of spatially overlapping fringe patterns are generated by at least five different wavelengths. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify JP 2019513577 A with a least five different wavelengths for overlapping patterns since it was well known in the art that using different wavelengths gives the computer much more data to build a highly accurate 3D height map, ensuring the part is perfectly flat and dense. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights