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 Interpretation – Intended Use
Claims 1-9 are directed towards an apparatus (i.e., stereolithography apparatus). The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (see MPEP § 2112.01 I and § 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
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: “interface level position adjustment mechanism that adjusts a position of a level” in claims 1 and 3-4 (see paragraphs [0038]-[0039] of the specification as published, US 2025/0289178, for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function).
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 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the photosensitive resin that is adjusted" in line 8. The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of an adjusted photosensitive resin making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the light that is transmitted through the release material" in lines 3-4. The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of light that is transmitted through the release material making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 6: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the stereolithography" in line 2. The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a stereolithography making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 9: the recitation “a photocurable resin of a type different” in line 3 is considered indefinite because the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression such that it is unclear what “of a type different” is intending to convey. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
Regarding claim 11: the recitations “opposed to an interface between the release material and the photocurable resin and that is capable of lifting of lowering with respect to the interface” and “adjusts a position of a level of the interface according to a variation in an amount of the release material stored in the modeling bath” are incomplete and therefore render the claim indefinite as it is not clear what is opposed to an interface and what adjusts a position as currently recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (US 2015/0165678).
As to claims 1 and 11: Ding discloses the claimed stereolithography apparatus and method of manufacturing a modeled object (i.e., three-dimensional printing apparatus 100 used in a process of forming a three-dimensional object 10) (Ding at [0006], [0028], [0031], [0033], FIG. 1) comprising:
a modeling bath (i.e., tank 110) that includes a light transmitting portion on a bottom surface (i.e., light source 130 is disposed below the tank 110 and irradiates through the bottom 112 of the tank 110) and that stores a photocurable resin and a liquid release material that has a specific gravity larger than that of the photocurable resin and that phase-separates from the photocurable resin (i.e., tank 110 is filled with a liquid forming material 102 and a separating liquid 104, wherein a specific density of the separating liquid 104 is larger than a specific density of the liquid forming material 102, and the separating liquid 104 and the liquid forming material 102 are immiscible with each other, so that the separating liquid 104 sinks between the bottom 112 of the tank 100 and the liquid forming material 102) (Ding at [0028], FIG. 1);
an optical illuminator that applies light that causes the photosensitive resin that is adjusted into a given thickness to cure via the light transmitting portion (i.e., light source 130 is disposed below the tank 110 and irradiates through the bottom 112 of the tank 110 so as to cure the liquid forming material 102) (Ding at [0028], [0029], FIG. 1);
a platform that is opposed to an interface (i.e., ) between the release material and the photocurable resin and that is capable of lifting or lowering with respect to the interface (i.e., moving platform 120 is positioned above the tank 1120 and adapted move relative to the tank 110 along an axial direction, so as to immerse into the liquid forming material 102 to the junction between the separating liquid 104 and the liquid forming material 102, liquid level position P1) (Ding at [0028], [0029], [0030], FIG. 1); and
an interface level position adjustment mechanism that adjusts a position of a level of the interface according to a variation in an amount of the release material stored in the modeling bath (i.e., detecting unit 140 is adapted to detect a junction between the separating liquid 104 and the liquid forming material 102, liquid level position P1; and the detecting unit 140 includes a floating ball 142, a linkage module 144 and a detection device 146, such that when the liquid level position P1 of the separating liquid 104 is lower than a preset value, the control unit 150 controls the first injection module 160 to inject a proper amount of the separating liquid 104 into the tank 110) (Ding at [0028], [0029], [0030], [0033], [0035], FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hughes (US 5,106,288).
As to claim 2: Ding discloses the claimed stereolithography apparatus of claim 1. Ding fails to disclose the claimed wherein a side of the light transmitting portion opposed to the release material is formed into a curved shape having a given optical effect.
However, Hughes teaches a system for producing precision plastic products via the polymerization of liquid plastics using focused ultra-violet laser beams whose computer controlled positioning relative to the face of a computer controlled adjustable piston immersed in the said liquid plastic allows for the hardened plastic product being produced to rest on the said end face of said piston as the computer controlled laser beam product profiling processes take place within the liquid plastic (Hughes at column 1, lines 6-15; FIG. 1). Hughes further teaches the focused laser beam being rapidly moved around the normal to the entrance window 9 of the tank, where the entrance window 9 can be of a curved configuration (Hughes at column 7, lines 64-67; column 9, line 3-5; FIG. 1)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the curved shape of the light transmitting window as such is known in the art of stereolithography given the discussion of Hughes above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so minimizes any parallax effects on the transmitted laser beam (as recognized by Hughes at column 9, lines 3-5).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Willis et al. (US 2016/0067921).
As to claim 3: Ding discloses the claimed stereolithography apparatus of claim 1. Ding further discloses the claimed the stereolithography apparatus further comprises a control device that determines fineness of a cross- sectional shape in a position of a level to be modeled based on design image data that defines a cross-sectional shape in a position of each given level of a modeled object that is modeled by application of the light (Ding at [0005], [0024], [0030], [0031], FIG. 1).
Ding discloses the separating liquid 104 including saline (Ding at [0015], [0028]); and the detecting unit 140 being adapted to detect a junction between the separating liquid 104 and the liquid forming material 102, liquid level position P1; and the detecting unit 140 includes a floating ball 142, a linkage module 144 and a detection device 146, such that when the liquid level position P1 of the separating liquid 104 is lower than a preset value, the control unit 150 controls the first injection module 160 to inject a proper amount of the separating liquid 104 into the tank 110 (Ding at [0028], [0029], [0030], [0033], [0035], FIG. 1).
Though Ding fails to disclose the claimed wherein the release material has characteristics that an amount of the light that is transmitted through the release material varies according to the position of the level of the interface, and the interface level position adjustment mechanism adjusts the position of the level of the interface according to the determined fineness.
However, Willis teaches a 3D printing system 100 including vat 110 to hold liquid 120 which includes one or more photoactive resins, and the vat 110 includes a window 115 in its bottom through which illumination is transmitted to cure a 3D printed part 160 (Willis at [0026], FIG. 1). Willis further teaches using photon absorbing species in the liquid 120 within vat 110, such that when a first light 180 and a second light 185 are directed into the vat 110 through window 115, the first light has a first wavelength selected to produce photoinhibition and creates a photoinhibition layer 170 within the liquid 120 directly adjacent the window 115, and the second light 185 has a second wavelength different from the first wavelength which is used to create the 3D structure 160 on the build plate 130 by curing the photoactive resin in the liquid 120 within a photoinitiation layer 175 (i.e., wherein the release material has characteristics that an amount of the light that is transmitted through the release material varies according to the position of the level of the interface) (Willis at [0026], [0029], [0030], [0031], [0032], FIG. 1).
Moreover, Willis teaches the computer 150 (or other controller) can change a thickness of the photoinitiation layer 175, the photoinhibition layer 170, or both; such that, this change in layer thickness(es) can be performed during creation of the solid structure 160 based on one or more details of the structure 160 at one or more points in the 3D print, e.g., the layer thickness can be changed to increase 3D print resolution in the dimension that is the direction of the movement of the build plate 130 relative to the vat 110 (e.g., to add greater Z details) in layers that may require it (i.e., the interface level position adjustment mechanism adjusts the position of the level of the interface according to the determined fineness) (Willis at [0030]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the species that absorbs light at the inhibiting wavelength in the release material and interface level adjustment based on determined details/fineness as such is known in the art of stereolithography given the discussion of Willis above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, with the added benefit of being able to control the depth of the inhibition so that polymerization only occurs further into the resin vat (as recognized by Willis at [0032]).
As to claim 4: Ding and Willis disclose the stereolithographic apparatus of claim 3 above. Ding, modified by Willis, further discloses the claimed wherein the interface level position adjustment mechanism adjusts the position of the level of the interface to a position higher than a given reference level when it is determined that the fineness is high and adjusts the position of the level of the interface to a position lower than the given reference level when it is determined that the fineness is low (Ding at [0029]-[0031], [0033]-[0036], FIG. 1; and Willis at [0029], [0030], FIG. 1), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 5: Ding and Willis disclose the stereolithographic apparatus of claim 3 above. Ding, modified by Willis, further discloses the claimed wherein the platform adjusts a thickness of the photocurable resin to a value smaller than a given reference range when it is determined that the fineness is high and adjusts the thickness to a value higher than the given reference range when it is determined that the fineness is low (Ding at [0029]-[0031], [0033]-[0036], FIG. 1; and Willis at [0029], [0030], FIG. 1), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hull (US 5,236,637).
As to claim 6: Ding discloses the claimed stereolithography apparatus of claim 1. Ding further discloses the claimed wherein the stereolithography comprising a stereolithography control device that models a modeled object by emitting light to the photocurable resin that is adjusted to a given thickness on the interface between the photocurable resin and the release material via the release material and sequentially layering hardened layers in which the photocurable resin cures, the stereolithography control device comprising a modeling controller that executes a step of modeling the first modeled object obtained by layering the hardened layers sequentially downward by application of the light while lifting the platform with respect to the interface and a step of, after lowering the platform with respect to the interface and sinking at least part of the first modeled object in the release material (Ding at [0028]-[0031], [0033]-[0036], FIG. 1).
Ding fails to disclose the claimed modeling the second modeled object obtained by layering the hardened layers sequentially upward by application of the light in a position higher than a lowest surface of the first modeled object while further lowering the platform with respect to the interface.
However, Hull teaches a method and apparatus for generating three-dimensional objects via stereolithography (Hull at column 4, lines 45-47). Hull further teaches a stereolithographic system having an elevator platform 29 having additional degrees of freedom so that different faces of the object 30 may be exposed for alternate methods of construction so as to form structure 41 as an addition to one side of the three-dimensional object 30 (Hull at column 10, lines 54-58; column 11, lines 1-5; FIGs. 7-8)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the structure formed as an addition to one side of a first three-dimensional object as such is known in the art of stereolithography given the discussion of Hull above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 7: Ding and Hull disclose the stereolithographic apparatus of claim 6 above. Ding, modified by Hull, further discloses the claimed wherein the modeling controller models the second modeled object from a surface of the first modeled object that is positioned on a side of the platform toward the platform (Hull at column 10, lines 54-58; column 11, lines 1-5; FIGs. 7-8), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 8: Ding and Hull disclose the stereolithographic apparatus of claim 6 above. Ding, modified by Hull, further discloses the claimed wherein the modeling controller models the second modeled object on a surface of the first modeled object along a height direction (Hull at column 10, lines 54-58; column 11, lines 1-5; FIGs. 7-8), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 9: Ding and Hull disclose the stereolithographic apparatus of claim 6 above. Ding, modified by Hull, further discloses the claimed wherein the modeling controller executes a step of making a replacement with a photocurable resin of a type different from that of the photocurable resin of the first modeled object after the step of modeling the first modeled object (Hull at column 10, lines 54-58; column 11, lines 1-5; FIGs. 7-8), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US 2015/0165678) in view of Hull (US 5,236,637).
As to claim 10: Ding discloses the claimed method of manufacturing a modeled object using a stereolithography apparatus (i.e., three-dimensional printing apparatus 100 used in a process of forming a three-dimensional object 10) (Ding at [0006], [0028], [0031], [0033], FIG. 1) that includes a modeling bath that stores a photocurable resin and a liquid release material that has a specific gravity larger than that of the photocurable resin and that phase-separates from the photocurable resin (i.e., tank 110 is filled with a liquid forming material 102 and a separating liquid 104, wherein a specific density of the separating liquid 104 is larger than a specific density of the liquid forming material 102, and the separating liquid 104 and the liquid forming material 102 are immiscible with each other, so that the separating liquid 104 sinks between the bottom 112 of the tank 100 and the liquid forming material 102) (Ding at [0028], FIG. 1) and a platform capable of lifting or lowering with respect to an interface between the release material and the photocurable resin and that models a modeled object by emitting light to the photocurable resin that is adjusted to a given thickness on the interface between the photocurable resin and the release material via the release material and sequentially layering hardened layers in which the photocurable resin cures (i.e., moving platform 120 is positioned above the tank 1120 and adapted move relative to the tank 110 along an axial direction, so as to immerse into the liquid forming material 102 to the junction between the separating liquid 104 and the liquid forming material 102, liquid level position P1) (Ding at [0028], [0029], [0030], FIG. 1), the method comprising:
modeling the first modeled object obtained by layering the hardened layers sequentially downward by application of the light while lifting the platform with respect to the interface and after lowering the platform with respect to the interface and sinking at least part of the first modeled object in the release material (i.e., light source 130 is disposed below the tank 110 and irradiates through the bottom 112 of the tank 110 so as to cure the liquid forming material 102 layer by layer) (Ding at [0028], [0029], [0030], FIG. 1),
Ding fails to disclose the claimed modeling the second modeled object obtained by layering the hardened layers sequentially upward by application of the light in a position higher than a lowest surface of the first modeled object while further lowering the platform with respect to the interface.
However, Hull teaches a method and apparatus for generating three-dimensional objects via stereolithography (Hull at column 4, lines 45-47). Hull further teaches a stereolithographic system having an elevator platform 29 having additional degrees of freedom so that different faces of the object 30 may be exposed for alternate methods of construction so as to form structure 41 as an addition to one side of the three-dimensional object 30 (Hull at column 10, lines 54-58; column 11, lines 1-5; FIGs. 7-8)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the structure formed as an addition to one side of a first three-dimensional object as such is known in the art of stereolithography given the discussion of Hull above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
