DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. The application data sheet filed on 23 December 2024 identifies the filing date of Application No. 17/652,084 as 2 February 2022. The correct filing date is 22 February 2022. Applicant is requested to file a corrected application data sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76(c) correcting this date.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In [0002], “relates generally 3D printing” should be replaced with “relates generally to 3D printing”.
b. In [0006], “the curing plane in continuously moved” should be replaced with “the curing plane is continuously moved”.
c. In [0015], “in the bath photopolymer resin 18” should be replaced with “in the bath of photopolymer resin 18”.
d. In [0019], “replenishing the path of photopolymer resin 102” should be replaced with “replenishing the bath of photopolymer resin 102”.
e. In [0020], “one or more a servo motors” should be replaced with “one or more servo motors”.
f. In [0025], “such an elliptical shape” should be replaced with “such as an elliptical shape”, and “In certain embodiment,” should be replaced with “In certain embodiments,”.
4. Appropriate correction is required.
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in the last sentence, “the curing plane in continuously moved” should be replaced with “the curing plane is continuously moved”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
6. Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: “causing, by a processor, a light source assembly” should be replaced with “causing, by the processor, a light source assembly” for consistency with “a processor” in the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
9. Claims 18-20, 22, 23, 27-31, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 810,041 (“Gordon”) in view of US 2011/0259631 (“Rumsby”) and US 2018/0290380 (“Rehrig”).
10. Citations to Gordon below are to page and line numbers of the complete specification.
11. Regarding claim 18, modified Gordon discloses the following.
12. A continuous additive fabrication system, comprising:
13. Gordon, page 1, lines 14-21: “a body of resin or plastic is generated by scanning a beam of electrons over a window in a container holding a liquid resin or plastic to set the resin or plastic, and the resultant solid is continuously drawn away from the window to generate a body, the shape of which is dependent on the rate of drawing away and on the path of the electron beam.”
14. a bath of photopolymer resin;
15. Gordon, page 1, lines 73-81: “The apparatus of Figure 1 comprises a source of electrons, indicated generally at 1, which may, for example, be a Van der Graaf generator, the electrons being focussed into a beam which emerges upwards into an envelope 2 and impinges on the underside of a thin horizontal screen or window 3. This window forms the bottom of a container having sides 4 and holding a liquid thermosetting resin 5.”
16. Gordon does not disclose that the resin 5 is a photopolymer resin. Gordon sets the resin with a beam of electrons rather than with light.
17. Rehrig is directed to continuously forming a three-dimensional body from a mixture containing a radiation curable material (Abstract). Rehrig, [0038]: “the assembly can have a computer controlled electromagnetic radiation unit (11), a chamber (12), and a construction unit (13). The electromagnetic radiation unit (11) can include a UV or visible light (14) emitting radiation source, for example, a laser or a light emitting diode (led) and may project a varying CAD/CAM created two-dimensional image onto a transparent window (15) at the bottom of the chamber (12). The chamber (12) can include a mixture (16) that can include a radiation curable material and solid particles.”
18. Rehrig, [0039]: “The radiation cured translating portion (19) can adhere to the carrier plate (18) and be vertically moved away from the interface of the inhibition zone (22). … The construction is designed to move the carrier plate (18) continuously upwards in z direction at a speed that corresponds to the time needed for radiation curing mixture (16) that replaces the upwards moved solidified translating portion.”
19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a UV or visible light source and a radiation curable (i.e., photopolymer) resin, as taught by Rehrig, for the electron source 1 and the electron-curable resin 5 of Gordon. Rehrig shows that the same arrangement as Gordon works with light and a photocurable material: a liquid set at a window in the bottom of a container while the solidified body is continuously drawn away from the window. This would represent a simple substitution of one known curing radiation and curable material for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
20. Gordon as modified in this manner is referred to below as “modified Gordon”.
21. a light source assembly comprising a light source and a motorized variable aperture, the light source assembly operable to generate a focus point in the bath of photopolymer resin, the focus point defining a curing plane;
22. In modified Gordon, the light source is the UV or visible light emitting radiation source of Rehrig, as set forth above.
23. Gordon, page 1, lines 32-42: “By scanning in a raster or by de-focussing the beam and using an aperture stop on the window, a solid body could be generated. It will be appreciated that by suitable control of the deflecting voltages or by selection of the shape of the stop, a body of almost any reasonable cross-section can be generated. Moreover, by suitably programming a sequence of changes in the deflecting voltage it is possible to vary the cross-section throughout the length of the body.”
24. Gordon, page 2, lines 26-38: “Figures 2 and 3 show a similar arrangement, with an envelope 2 and a window 3, but the electron beam is defocussed and scans evenly over a substantial area of the window. The underside of the window is covered by a stencil or stop 10 of material which absorbs electrons, for example an earthed metal plate, having an aperture 11 the shape of the body to be formed. It will be appreciated that this is chiefly suitable for producing bodies of constant cross-section, although it might be possible to use a stencil of variable area such as an iris.”
25. Gordon does not expressly disclose a variable aperture in the embodiment of Figure 1, in which the cross-section is varied along the length of the body. Gordon also does not disclose that the iris is motorized.
26. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a variable iris for the deflecting electrodes 6 and 7 of the embodiment of Figure 1 of modified Gordon. Gordon teaches that deflection of the beam and a stop in the beam’s path are each suitable for defining the cross-section of the body (page 1, lines 32-38), and that the stop may have a variable area, such as an iris (page 2, lines 35-38). Further, in modified Gordon the beam is light rather than electrons, so the electrostatic deflecting electrodes of Figure 1 would no longer act on it, while a stop of variable area would. This would represent a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
27. Rumsby is directed to laser machining (Rumsby, [0001]) and addresses the same problem of changing the size of an aperture that shapes a beam of light. Rumsby, [0034]: “Since pads and contact holes of different size are required even within individual circuits, it is desirable that the aperture size can be readily changed. … This change of aperture size or aperture removal is accomplished by the use of motorized variable iris if the aperture is circular or by the use of a motorized mask or aperture changer unit. Such motorized devices are well known.”
28. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a motor to drive the variable iris of modified Gordon, as taught by Rumsby, since Rumsby indicates that motorized variable irises are well known for changing an aperture size. This would represent a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). See also MPEP 2144.04(III) regarding the automation of a manual activity.
29. Gordon, page 1, lines 91-94: “The plastic in the container is polymerised at that surface which touches the window 3, over the region in which the electron beam impinges.”
30. Rehrig, [0042]: “Actual solidification and forming of the three dimensional body starts at the interface of the inhibition zone (22), i.e., an interface of the mixture.”
31. In modified Gordon, the light passing through the motorized variable iris is projected onto the window, as in Rehrig ([0038]). Curing takes place in the resin at the window, over the region the light reaches. The projected light there is a focus point, and the plane at which curing takes place is the curing plane.
32. a platform located within the bath of photopolymer resin and configured to support cured polymer comprising a build object;
33. Gordon, page 2, lines 1-8: “the deflecting electrodes cause the electrons to trace a circular pattern, so that a thin ring of polymerised plastic is formed. This ring is secured, for example by tongs or claws (not shown), and is drawn upwards, the tongs or claws being secured to a cord wound up on a motor-driven drum or to a rack engaged by a driven pinion.”
34. Gordon does not disclose a platform located within the bath and configured to support cured polymer comprising a build object. Gordon instead secures the formed body with tongs or claws.
35. Rehrig, [0039]: “When the formation of the three-dimensional body is started, the carrier plate (18) can be emerged into the mixture (16) up to a pre-calculated distance from the interface of the inhibition zone (22). … The radiation cured translating portion (19) can adhere to the carrier plate (18) and be vertically moved away from the interface of the inhibition zone (22).”
36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a carrier plate in place of the tongs or claws of modified Gordon, with the carrier plate located within the resin and moving through it, as taught by Rehrig ([0039] and Figure 1A). It would likewise have been obvious to have coupled the motor-driven drum or rack and pinion of Gordon to the carrier plate in order to draw it upwards. This would represent a simple substitution of one known support for a body being formed for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
37. a drive mechanism coupled to the platform and configured to move the platform through the bath of photopolymer resin while the curing plane remains fixed; and
38. Gordon, page 2, lines 8-11: “Preferably the winding takes place at a constant speed, more liquid resin being continually polymerised below that part which is drawn up, and in this way a tube is formed.”
39. In modified Gordon, the motor-driven drum or rack and pinion is coupled to the carrier plate and moves it upward through the resin, as set forth above. Curing continues at the window, so the curing plane remains fixed. Rehrig, [0039] and [0042], as quoted above, likewise moves the carrier plate continuously upward while solidification takes place at a fixed interface.
40. a processor coupled to the light source assembly, the processor being configured to execute software instructions to change a diameter of the motorized variable aperture according to a shape of the build object while the platform is moved through the bath of photopolymer resin.
41. Gordon, page 2, lines 11-25: “By continuously varying the amplitudes of the deflecting voltages in a pre-arranged manner, whilst maintaining constant drawing speed, it is possible to build up a body of non-constant cross-section, such as that shown at 9 in Figure 1. Here the shape of the cross-section pattern scanned is constant, only its size changing, but clearly by suitably programming changes in the form of the voltages on the deflecting electrodes and possibly also in the speed of the drawing upwards, it is possible to generate much more complicated hollow shapes”.
42. Gordon, page 1, lines 53-58: “The three variables are used to control respectively the amplitudes of the beam deflections in two dimensions, and the speed of drawing of the body”.
43. In modified Gordon, the variable iris takes the place of the deflecting electrodes. The programmed changes in cross-section are therefore changes in the diameter of the iris, made according to the shape of the body being formed while the body is drawn upward.
44. Gordon does not disclose a processor configured to execute software instructions.
45. Rehrig, [0038], as quoted above, discloses a “computer controlled electromagnetic radiation unit (11)” that projects “a varying CAD/CAM created two-dimensional image” to define the cured cross-section as the carrier plate moves.
46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a computer, as taught by Rehrig, to carry out the programmed changes of modified Gordon. That is, a computer coupled to the light source assembly would execute software instructions to change the diameter of the motorized variable iris according to the shape of the body being formed as the carrier plate is drawn upward. Since Gordon also programs the speed of drawing together with the cross-section (page 1, lines 53-58; page 2, lines 18-23), the computer would control the drive as well. Rehrig shows that a continuous forming apparatus of this type is controlled by computer from CAD/CAM data. This would represent the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
47. Regarding claim 19, modified Gordon discloses the following.
48. wherein the drive mechanism is configured to move the platform vertically through the bath of photopolymer resin and away from a surface of the photopolymer resin.
49. Claim 19 recites “a surface” of the photopolymer resin without specifying which surface. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is met by the surface of the resin at the window. Gordon itself refers to the resin there as “that surface which touches the window 3” (page 1, lines 91-94).
50. In modified Gordon, the drive moves the carrier plate vertically upward through the resin, away from the surface of the resin at the window, as set forth in the rejection of claim 18. Rehrig, [0039]: the cured portion and carrier plate are “vertically moved away from the interface of the inhibition zone (22)”, which Rehrig also calls “an interface of the mixture” ([0042]).
51. Regarding claim 20, modified Gordon discloses the following.
52. wherein a rate of the change to the diameter of the motorized variable aperture is synchronized with a speed at which the platform is moved through the photopolymer resin.
53. Gordon, page 1, lines 18-21: the shape of the body “is dependent on the rate of drawing away and on the path of the electron beam.”
54. In modified Gordon, the computer controls both the diameter of the iris and the speed of drawing according to a programme, as set forth in the rejection of claim 18. Each portion of the body takes the cross-section set by the iris at the moment it passes the curing plane. The programmed rate of change of the diameter is therefore tied to the speed of drawing in order to produce the intended shape, which makes the two synchronized.
55. Regarding claim 22, modified Gordon discloses the following.
56. wherein an initial position of the platform is set at a predetermined depth below a surface of the photopolymer resin.
57. Modified Gordon does not expressly disclose setting an initial position of the carrier plate at a predetermined depth.
58. Rehrig, [0039]: “When the formation of the three-dimensional body is started, the carrier plate (18) can be emerged into the mixture (16) up to a pre-calculated distance from the interface of the inhibition zone (22). According to one embodiment, the pre-calculated distance corresponds to a portion of the mixture that can be radiation cured (translated from liquid to solid state) if subjected to electromagnetic radiation from the radiation unit (11) underneath the chamber (12)”.
59. Rehrig’s carrier plate is lowered into the mixture from above to a pre-calculated starting position. Its starting depth below the upper surface of the mixture is therefore predetermined.
60. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have initially positioned the carrier plate of modified Gordon in the resin at a pre-calculated distance from the window, as taught by Rehrig. Rehrig teaches that this starting position sets the portion of resin that is first cured and adheres to the carrier plate ([0039]). This would represent a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
61. Regarding claim 23, modified Gordon discloses the following.
62. wherein the light source assembly comprises an ultraviolet (UV) light source.
63. In modified Gordon, the light source is Rehrig’s “UV or visible light (14) emitting radiation source” ([0038]), as set forth in the rejection of claim 18. UV is one of the two options Rehrig names.
64. Regarding claim 27, modified Gordon discloses the following.
65. wherein a shape of the focus point corresponds to a shape of the motorized variable aperture.
66. Gordon, page 2, lines 31-33: the stop has “an aperture 11 the shape of the body to be formed”. In modified Gordon, the light passing through the iris is projected onto the window, so the cured region there has the shape of the iris aperture.
67. Regarding claim 28, modified Gordon discloses the following.
68. A method for continuous additive fabrication, comprising:
69. causing, by a processor, a light source assembly to generate a focus point in a bath of photopolymer resin, the focus point defining a curing plane;
70. causing, by the processor, a drive mechanism to move a platform through the bath of photopolymer resin while the curing plane remains fixed; and
71. changing, by the processor, a diameter of a motorized variable aperture of the light source assembly according to a shape of a build object while the platform is moved through the bath of photopolymer resin.
72. Please see the rejection of claim 18 above. In modified Gordon, the computer controls the electromagnetic radiation unit (Rehrig, [0038]), the drive that draws the carrier plate upward, and the diameter of the motorized variable iris, as set forth in the rejection of claim 18.
73. Regarding claim 29, modified Gordon discloses the following.
74. wherein the drive mechanism is configured to move the platform vertically through the bath of photopolymer resin and away from a surface of the photopolymer resin.
75. Please see the rejection of claim 19 above.
76. Regarding claim 30, modified Gordon discloses the following.
77. wherein the changing a diameter of the motorized variable aperture comprises synchronizing a rate of change to the diameter with a speed at which the platform is moved through the photopolymer resin.
78. Please see the rejection of claim 20 above.
79. Regarding claim 31, modified Gordon discloses the following.
80. further comprising setting an initial position of the platform at a predetermined depth below a surface of the photopolymer resin.
81. Please see the rejection of claim 22 above.
82. Regarding claim 33, modified Gordon discloses the following.
83. A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for continuous additive fabrication comprising:
84. The computer of modified Gordon executes software instructions, as set forth in the rejection of claim 18. Instructions executed by a computer are stored in the computer’s memory, which is a non-transitory computer readable medium.
85. causing, by a processor, a light source assembly to generate a focus point in a bath of photopolymer resin, the focus point defining a curing plane;
86. causing, by the processor, a drive mechanism to move a platform through the bath of photopolymer resin while the curing plane remains fixed; and
87. changing, by the processor, a diameter of a motorized variable aperture of the light source assembly according to a shape of a build object while the platform is moved through the bath of photopolymer resin.
88. Please see the rejections of claims 18 and 28 above.
89. Regarding claim 34, modified Gordon discloses the following.
90. wherein the drive mechanism is configured to move the platform vertically through the bath of photopolymer resin and away from a surface of the photopolymer resin.
91. Please see the rejection of claim 19 above.
92. Regarding claim 35, modified Gordon discloses the following.
93. wherein the changing a diameter of the motorized variable aperture comprises synchronizing a rate of change to the diameter with a speed at which the platform is moved through the photopolymer resin.
94. Please see the rejection of claim 20 above.
95. Regarding claim 36, modified Gordon discloses the following.
96. the method further comprising setting an initial position of the platform at a predetermined depth below a surface of the photopolymer resin.
97. Please see the rejection of claim 22 above.
98. Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Rumsby and Rehrig as applied to claims 18 and 23 above, and further in view of US 2017/0087766 (“Chung”).
99. Regarding claim 21, modified Gordon discloses the following.
100. wherein the drive mechanism comprises a servo motor.
101. Modified Gordon draws the carrier plate upward with a motor-driven drum or a rack and driven pinion (Gordon, page 2, lines 5-8), but does not disclose that the motor is a servo motor.
102. Chung is directed to three-dimensional fabrication by projecting light patterns into a photopolymerizable solution (Abstract). Chung, [0059]: “the basic elements of the system 100 are a UV light Source 110, a computer controller/processor (not shown), which performs sliced image-flow generation, i.e., ‘virtual masks’ 111, … and an multi-axis stage 115 for sample position control.”
103. Chung, [0059]: “The projection mask on the DMD 113 shifts to Mask 2.0-2.0..n as the servo-controlled platform 115 translates up to move the fabricated base portion 130a past the polymerization plane 120”.
104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a servo motor as the motor driving the carrier plate of modified Gordon, as taught by Chung. Chung uses a servo-controlled platform under computer control to move a part continuously past a fixed polymerization plane while the cured cross-section changes. This would represent a simple substitution of one known drive motor for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
105. Regarding claim 24, modified Gordon discloses the following.
106. further comprising a UV-blocker operable to control a depth of penetration of light produced by the UV light source.
107. Modified Gordon does not disclose a UV-blocker.
108. Chung, [0069]: “Photoinitiator (1% (w/v), Irgacure 2959, CIBA Specialty Chemicals), UV absorber (0.1% (w/v) HMBS, (2-hydroxy-4-methoxy-benzphenone-5-Sulfonic acid), Sigma) and free radical quencher (0.01% (w/v), TEMPO, Sigma) was added to the solution to allow for photopolymerization and provide efficient cure depth and optimal pattern resolution.”
109. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a UV absorber to the resin of modified Gordon, as taught by Chung, in order to “provide efficient cure depth and optimal pattern resolution.” The UV absorber limits how far the UV light penetrates into the resin, and so is a UV-blocker operable to control the depth of penetration of the light. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
110. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Rumsby and Rehrig as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 2019/0193204 (“Houbertz”).
111. Regarding claim 25, modified Gordon discloses the following.
112. wherein the light source assembly is mounted vertically above the bath of photopolymer resin.
113. In modified Gordon, the light enters through the window at the bottom of the container. Modified Gordon therefore does not disclose a light source assembly mounted vertically above the bath.
114. Houbertz is directed to producing three-dimensional bodies by light-induced solidification of a material ([0001]-[0003]). Houbertz, [0071]: “In a fourth embodiment, a relatively large body is created using 2PP structuring. For this purpose, the substrate can be designed as a material container for a bath of solidifiable material … Two different versions of this embodiment are shown in FIGS. 5a and 5b. While the material (12) in the first of these configurations is exposed from above, the exposure in the second configuration takes place from below, namely through the transparent bottom (15) of the material container (15, 18) (which functions here as substrate), a carrier being present in the bath to which the structure to be solidified can couple. Of course, a carrier can also be used when exposure is from above.”
115. Figure 5a shows the focusing optics 6 above the material 12 in the material container (15, 18). Figure 5b shows the focusing optics 6 below the transparent bottom 15 of the material container, with a carrier 20 in the bath that is movable in the Z direction. Figures 5a and 5b.
116. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mounted the light source assembly of modified Gordon above the bath, exposing the resin from above, with the carrier plate in the bath moved downward away from the exposed resin. Houbertz presents exposure from above and exposure from below through a transparent bottom as two versions of the same apparatus, each usable with a carrier in the bath ([0071]; Figures 5a and 5b). The two arrangements are thus recognized in the art as equivalents for the same purpose, and selecting one in place of the other would have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II). This would also represent a simple substitution of one known arrangement for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). In the rearranged modified Gordon, curing still takes place at a fixed plane while the carrier plate moves through the bath.
Double Patenting
117. 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).
118. 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).
119. 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.
120. 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.
121. Claims 18, 26, 28, 32, 33, and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,298,874 (“the patent”) in view of Houbertz and Rehrig.
122. Claim 1 of the patent recites a method of forming an intraocular lens (IOL) by additive fabrication in which a light source assembly generates a focus point in a bath of photopolymer resin at a curing plane, the shape of the focus point corresponding to the shape of a motorized variable aperture of the light source assembly. The curing plane is moved through the bath by moving the light source assembly, and the diameter of the motorized variable aperture is changed at a rate that varies as the light source assembly is moved, so as to form the IOL with a smooth hemispherical shape, with an aspherical surface created by varying the speed of the movement. Claim 3 of the patent further recites a platform located within the bath.
123. The claims of the patent differ from claims 18, 28, and 33 of the present application in two respects. First, the patent moves the curing plane by moving the light source assembly, whereas the present application moves a platform through the bath with a drive mechanism while the curing plane remains fixed. Second, the patent does not recite a processor executing software instructions.
124. Houbertz teaches that, for a body produced in a bath container, either the focusing optics or the bath container/substrate/body may be moved in the Z direction ([0014]). Rehrig teaches a drive moving a carrier plate continuously upward through the resin away from a fixed curing interface ([0039] and [0042]), with a computer controlled radiation unit ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved a platform supporting the IOL through the bath, with the curing plane fixed, in place of moving the light source assembly in the method of the patent, since Houbertz teaches the two as alternative ways of setting the relative Z position of the focus and the body being formed, and Rehrig shows the platform-moving arrangement. It would also have been obvious to have carried out the method with a computer executing software instructions stored in its memory, as taught by Rehrig, with the system and medium of claims 18 and 33 following as the means for performing that method.
125. Regarding claims 26, 32, and 37, see claim 1 of the patent, which recites creating an aspherical surface on the IOL.
126. Claims 18-23, 27-31, and 33-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 7-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,897,190 (“the patent”) in view of Rehrig.
127. Claim 9 of the patent, with claim 5 from which it depends, recites a continuous additive fabrication system comprising a bath of photopolymer resin; a light source assembly comprising a light source and a motorized variable aperture, operable to generate a focus point in the bath, the shape of the focus point at a curing plane corresponding to the shape of the motorized variable aperture; a platform configured to support cured polymer comprising the IOL; and a drive mechanism coupled to the platform and configured to continuously move the platform vertically through the bath and away from a surface of the photopolymer resin while the curing plane remains fixed, at least one of a size or shape of the motorized variable aperture being changed while the platform is moved to form the IOL with a smooth hemispherical shape. Claim 15 of the patent, with claim 11, recites the corresponding method.
128. The claims of the patent differ from claims 18, 28, and 33 of the present application in that they do not recite a processor executing software instructions to change the diameter of the motorized variable aperture according to the shape of the build object, or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing such instructions. Changing the size of the aperture to form the IOL with a smooth hemispherical shape is changing it according to the shape of the build object. Further, the cross-sections of a hemispherical shape are circles, so forming that shape changes the size of a circular aperture, which is its diameter.
129. Rehrig teaches a computer controlled radiation unit that projects a varying CAD/CAM created image to define the cured cross-section as the carrier plate moves ([0038]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a computer executing software instructions, stored in its memory, to change the size of the motorized variable aperture in the system and method of the patent, as taught by Rehrig, since Rehrig shows that a continuous forming apparatus of this type is controlled by computer from CAD/CAM data. The claims of the patent are otherwise narrower than claims 18, 28, and 33, in requiring that the build object be an IOL with a smooth hemispherical shape and that the movement be continuous.
130. Regarding claims 19, 29, and 34, see claims 9 and 15 of the patent.
131. Regarding claims 20, 30, and 35, see claim 7 of the patent.
132. Regarding claim 21, see claim 10 of the patent.
133. Regarding claims 22, 31, and 36, see claim 8 of the patent.
134. Regarding claim 23, Rehrig discloses a UV light source ([0038]).
135. Regarding claim 27, see claims 5 and 11 of the patent.
136. Claims 18-20 and 22-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-36 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,570 (“the patent”) in view of Houbertz and Rehrig.
137. Claims 18, 27, and 32 of the patent recite a continuous additive fabrication system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium having every limitation of claims 18, 28, and 33 of the present application, respectively, including a processor configured to execute software instructions to change a diameter of the motorized variable aperture according to a shape of the build object while the curing plane is moved, except that the patent moves the curing plane through the photopolymer resin by changing an optical power of the light source, whereas the present application moves a platform through the bath with a drive mechanism while the curing plane remains fixed.
138. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the platform through the bath with a drive mechanism, with the curing plane fixed, in place of changing the optical power to move the curing plane, since Houbertz teaches that the relative Z position of the focus and the body being formed may be set either by moving the focusing optics or by moving the bath container/substrate/body ([0014]), and Rehrig shows a drive moving a carrier plate past a fixed curing interface ([0039] and [0042]).
139. Regarding claims 19, 29, and 34, Rehrig moves the carrier plate vertically away from the interface of the mixture ([0039] and [0042]).
140. Regarding claims 20, 30, and 35, see claims 20, 30, and 35 of the patent, respectively.
141. Regarding claim 22, see claim 24 of the patent.
142. Regarding claims 23-25, see claims 21-23 of the patent, respectively.
143. Regarding claims 26, 32, and 37, see claims 25, 31, and 36 of the patent, respectively.
144. Regarding claim 27, see claim 26 of the patent.
145. Regarding claims 31 and 36, see claim 24 of the patent, which recites the platform initially positioned at a predetermined depth below a surface of the photopolymer resin. Rehrig likewise emerges the carrier plate into the mixture to a pre-calculated starting position ([0039]).
146. Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,570 (“the patent”) in view of Houbertz, Rehrig, and Chung.
147. Claim 18 of the patent, as modified in view of Houbertz and Rehrig, is set forth above. Chung teaches a servo-controlled platform that translates a part past a fixed polymerization plane under computer control ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a servo motor as the drive mechanism, as taught by Chung, as a simple substitution of one known drive motor for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
148. Claims 26, 32, and 37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action, or upon the filing of a terminal disclaimer, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
149. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a. Claim 26 depends from claim 18 and requires that the build object be an intraocular lens (IOL) having an aspherical surface. Claims 32 and 37 add the same requirement to the method of claim 28 and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 33.
b. As set forth in the rejection of claim 18 above, GB 810,041 (“Gordon”), as modified in view of Rumsby and Rehrig, discloses a continuous additive fabrication system that changes the diameter of a motorized variable iris while a platform is drawn through a photopolymer resin past a fixed curing plane. Gordon discloses that a body of almost any reasonable cross-section can be generated (page 1, lines 35-38), and US 2013/0235334 (“Widman”) discloses fabricating aspheric IOLs in a free form manner ([0002], [0031], [0035], and [0037]). These teachings are insufficient to support a finding that it would have been obvious to produce an aspheric IOL using the process of Gordon, because: 1) the process of Gordon produces generally elongated parts and an IOL is relatively flat; and 2) the process of Widman is based on a different technique than the process of Gordon. See Section (IV)(1) of the Appeal Brief filed on 11 October 2021 in App. No. 15/920,495. Rehrig and Rumsby do not address IOLs.
c. The remaining prior art fails to disclose or suggest forming an IOL having an aspherical surface by changing the diameter of a motorized variable aperture according to the shape of the IOL while a platform is moved through a bath of photopolymer resin past a fixed curing plane. Typically, the prior art uses a device such as a digital micromirror device in place of the motorized variable aperture, resulting in a stair-stepped surface rather than a smooth surface. See the Applicant’s Figure 1 and paragraphs 14-16 of the specification.
Conclusion
150. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571) 270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
151. 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.
152. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao (Sam) Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
153. 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.
/John J. DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights