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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (US-20170239724) in view of Madigan (US-2018264553).
Regarding claim 1, Diaz teaches:
A method of printing a three-dimensional (3D) object ([0001]), comprising:
directing an incident light on a first location of a top surface of a powder bed used to print the 3D object through a set of optics that is configured based on first information regarding the first location ([0053] – [0059], [0064], [0071], [0083], and [0102]);
receiving second information regarding a second location of the top surface of the powder bed, Diaz does not explicitly teach receiving second information regarding a second location, although it does teach data collection during the printing and directing of the incident light ([0083], [0102]);
reconfiguring the set of optics by performing translational and rotational movements of the set of optics according to the received second information, Diaz does not explicitly teach reconfiguring the set of optics directly because of second information gathered, although it does teach data collection during the printing and directing of the incident light ([0083], [0102]), and adjusting the light based on data gathered during the scanning process ([0064] – [0071]), it does not teach doing this based on a discrete second information; and
directing the incident light on the second location of the top surface of the powder bed through the set of optics that is reconfigured according to the second information, see the previous paragraph regarding the discrete second information ([0053] – [0059], [0064], [0071], [0083], and [0102]).
Madigan, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
having a discrete first and second set of information that the redirection of the optics is based off of ([0008] – [0009]). Madigan teaches collecting first and second sets of information while the light is being directed which is used to adjust the process. This teaching would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to us when looking at Diaz to modify the process of Diaz, which teaches collecting information during the light direction process in order to adjust the parameters of the light, including the location it is directed to, to include the teaching from Madigan of collecting discrete first and second information in order to complete this process. The motivation, as stated by Madigan, being to monitor the additive manufacturing process in real-time ([0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Diaz further teaches:
wherein the first and second information are specified for different image distances at the top surfaces of the powder bed at first and second locations ([0057], [0071], and [0125]).
Regarding claim 3, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Diaz further teaches:
wherein the first and second information are specified for two different resolution and intensity requirements at the first and second locations ([0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Diaz further teaches:
wherein the translational movements are performed in only one direction ([0053] – [0059], [0064], [0071], [0083], and [0102]).
Regarding claim 8, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on. Diaz further teaches:
wherein the translational movements are performed in a first direction and a second direction that is perpendicular to the second direction ([0053] – [0059], [0064], [0071], [0083], and [0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Diaz teaches:
A computer readable medium storing a program executable at a set of processing units for configuring a set of controllers of an additive printing system to print a three-dimensional (3D) object ([0001], [0083], and [0102]), the program comprising sets of instructions for:
directing an incident light on a first location of a top surface of a powder bed used to print the 3D object through a set of optics of the additive printing system, wherein the set of optics that is configured based on first information regarding the first location ([0053] – [0059], [0064], [0071], [0083], and [0102]);
receiving second information regarding a second location of the top surface of the powder bed, Diaz does not explicitly teach receiving second information regarding a second location, although it does teach data collection during the printing and directing of the incident light ([0083], [0102]);
reconfiguring the set of optics through translational and rotational movements that are specified according to the received second information, Diaz does not explicitly teach reconfiguring the set of optics directly because of second information gathered, although it does teach data collection during the printing and directing of the incident light ([0083], [0102]), and adjusting the light based on data gathered during the scanning process ([0064] – [0071]), it does not teach doing this based on a discrete second information; and
directing the incident light on the second location of the top surface of the powder bed through the set of optics that is reconfigured according to the second information ([0053] – [0059], [0064], [0071], [0083], and [0102]).
Madigan, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
having a discrete first and second set of information that the redirection of the optics is based off of ([0008] – [0009]). Madigan teaches collecting first and second sets of information while the light is being directed which is used to adjust the process. This teaching would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to us when looking at Diaz to modify the process of Diaz, which teaches collecting information during the light direction process in order to adjust the parameters of the light, including the location it is directed to, to include the teaching from Madigan of collecting discrete first and second information in order to complete this process. The motivation, as stated by Madigan, being to monitor the additive manufacturing process in real-time ([0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 12 depends on. Diaz further teaches:
wherein the first and second information are specified for different image distances at the top surfaces of the powder bed at first and second locations ([0057], [0071], and [0125]).
Regarding claim 13, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 13 depends on. Diaz further teaches:
wherein the first and second information are specified for two different resolution and intensity requirements at the first and second locations ([0064]).
Regarding claim 17, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 17 depends on. Diaz further teaches:
wherein the translational movements are performed in only one direction ([0053] – [0059], [0064], [0071], [0083], and [0102]).
Regarding claim 18, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 18 depends on. Diaz further teaches:
wherein the translational movements are performed in a first direction and a second direction that is perpendicular to the second direction ([0053] – [0059], [0064], [0071], [0083], and [0102]).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (US-20170239724) in view of Madigan (US-2018264553), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Stucker (US-20140255666).
Regarding claim 4, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 4 depends on, but does not teach the first and second information being specified for different types of powdered materials. However, Stucker, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
wherein the first and second information are specified for two different types of powdered materials ([0008] – [0007], [0031], [0036], [0025], [0040], and [0043] - [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the first and second information of Diaz in view of Madigan to incorporate the teachings of Stucker and specify it for two different types of powdered materials. The purpose, as stated by Stucker, being directing the correct amount of energy, to the right location of the part, at the right time and for the right duration of time as it is being built without affecting the composition and processing of the surrounding material ([0047]).
Regarding claim 14, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 13, which claim 14 depends on, but does not teach the first and second information being specified for different types of powdered materials. However, Stucker, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
wherein the first and second information are specified for two different types of powdered materials ([0008] – [0007], [0031], [0036], [0025], [0040], and [0043] - [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the first and second information of Diaz in view of Madigan to incorporate the teachings of Stucker and specify it for two different types of powdered materials. The purpose, as stated by Stucker, being directing the correct amount of energy, to the right location of the part, at the right time and for the right duration of time as it is being built without affecting the composition and processing of the surrounding material ([0047]).
Claims 5, 9-10, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (US-20170239724) in view of Madigan (US-2018264553), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Ishikawa (US-20030214571).
Regarding claim 5, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on, but does not teach the first and second information being specified for different magnification ratios. However, Ishikawa, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
wherein the first and second information are specified for two different magnification ratios ([0002], [0038] – [0040], [0053], [0208], [0241], [0259] – [0263] and [0387] – [0395]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the first and second information of Diaz in view of Madigan to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa and specify it for two different magnification ratios. The purpose, as stated by Ishikawa, being many pixel portions whose light modulation state is changed according to each control signal are arranged on the substrate, and modulated with each pixel portion of the spatial light modulator ([0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on, but does not teach the set of optics comprising a precursor mirror, one or more intermediate mirrors, and one or more final mirrors. However, Ishikawa, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
wherein the set of optics comprises a precursor mirror, one or more intermediate mirrors, and one or more final mirrors, wherein reconfiguring the set of optics comprises performing translational and rotational movements of the one or more intermediate mirrors and the one or more final mirrors to control a distance of the incident light from the precursor mirror to a location of the top surface of the powder bed ([0149] – [0159]; Fig. 4, #50, #54, #58, and #69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the set of optics of Diaz in view of Madigan to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa and include a precursor mirror, intermediate mirror, and final mirror. The purpose, as stated by Ishikawa, being to have function of widening the light flux in the portion close to the optical axis of the lens and compressing the light flux in the portion far away from the optical axis for the array direction of the laser outgoing end, and also have the function of just passing the light for the direction crossed at right angles with the array direction. The Combination lenses correct the laser light so that the light intensity distribution is formed to be uniform ([0151]).
Regarding claim 10, Diaz in view of Madigan and Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 10 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
wherein the one or more final mirrors are configured to perform translational movements in a first direction and a second direction, and the one or more intermediate mirrors are mounted in a plane parallel to the first direction and the second direction and offset from the powder bed ([0149] – [0159]; Fig. 4, #50, #54, #58, and #69).
Regarding claim 15, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 15 depends on, but does not teach the first and second information being specified for different magnification ratios. However, Ishikawa, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
wherein the first and second information are specified for two different magnification ratios ([0002], [0038] – [0040], [0053], [0208], [0241], [0259] – [0263] and [0387] – [0395]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the first and second information of Diaz in view of Madigan to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa and specify it for two different magnification ratios. The purpose, as stated by Ishikawa, being many pixel portions whose light modulation state is changed according to each control signal are arranged on the substrate, and modulated with each pixel portion of the spatial light modulator ([0085]).
Regarding claim 19, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 19 depends on, but does not teach the set of optics comprising a precursor mirror, one or more intermediate mirrors, and one or more final mirrors. However, Ishikawa, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
wherein the set of optics comprises a precursor mirror, one or more intermediate mirrors, and one or more final mirrors, wherein reconfiguring the set of optics comprises performing translational and rotational movements of the one or more intermediate mirrors and the one or more final mirrors to control a distance of the incident light from the precursor mirror to a location of the top surface of the powder bed ([0149] – [0159]; Fig. 4, #50, #54, #58, and #69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the set of optics of Diaz in view of Madigan to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa and include a precursor mirror, intermediate mirror, and final mirror. The purpose, as stated by Ishikawa, being to have function of widening the light flux in the portion close to the optical axis of the lens and compressing the light flux in the portion far away from the optical axis for the array direction of the laser outgoing end, and also have the function of just passing the light for the direction crossed at right angles with the array direction. The Combination lenses correct the laser light so that the light intensity distribution is formed to be uniform ([0151]).
Regarding claim 20, Diaz in view of Madigan and Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 19, which claim 20 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
wherein the one or more final mirrors are configured to perform translational movements in a first direction and a second direction, and the one or more intermediate mirrors are mounted in a plane parallel to the first direction and the second direction and offset from the powder bed ([0149] – [0159]; Fig. 4, #50, #54, #58, and #69).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (US-20170239724) in view of Madigan (US-2018264553), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Kihara (US-20080169587).
Regarding claim 6, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, but does not teach comprising a first and second set of lenses. However, Kihara, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
wherein the set of optics comprises a plurality of lens assemblies comprising a plurality of first sets of optical lenses and a plurality of second sets of optical lenses, and wherein the plurality of second sets of optical lenses are swappable from the plurality of lens assemblies ([0020] – [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical lenses of Diaz in view of Madigan to incorporate the teachings of Kihara and use two sets. The purpose, as stated by Kihara, being the hardened layer can be formed in a specified time that is matched to the light intensity, making high-speed modeling possible ([0093]).
Regarding claim 16, Diaz in view of Madigan teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 16 depends on, but does not teach comprising a first and second set of lenses. However, Kihara, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of printing a three-dimensional object, teaches:
wherein the set of optics comprises a plurality of lens assemblies comprising a plurality of first sets of optical lenses and a plurality of second sets of optical lenses, and wherein the plurality of second sets of optical lenses are swappable from the plurality of lens assemblies ([0020] – [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical lenses of Diaz in view of Madigan to incorporate the teachings of Kihara and use two sets. The purpose, as stated by Kihara, being the hardened layer can be formed in a specified time that is matched to the light intensity, making high-speed modeling possible ([0093]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights