Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-17, 19-21) in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 18 is withdrawn. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the overall features of alleged Invention I of claims 1-17, 19-21 are the same as that of alleged Invention II of claim 18 which is a single independent system claim, would definitely not appear to involve a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because in Group II (claim 18), there are still some limitations (for example, in claim 10, line 10, ‘an objective lens disposed downstream of the lens system’) that needs to be searched separately.
Although there may be some overlap of the search for the inventions there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. Further the examination on the merits of apparatus claims differs from that of method claims. Therefor the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing multiple inventions poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kihara et al. (US 2008/0157412).
Regarding claim 1, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated on Figs. 1, 2, 5, a method for two photon printing using a quantity of photo- polymerizable material (item 2, Fig. 2 ([0046], lines 3-4 (i.e., a liquid ultraviolet curable resin))) having a first material photo-polymerizable via a first optical signal at a first wavelength or via a second optical signal at a second wavelength, and a second material photo-polymerizable via the second optical signal at the second wavelength (ABSTRACT; [0047]), the method comprising:
generating a first optical beam at a first wavelength (item 11, Fig. 2 ([0047], lines 1-7));
generating a second optical beam at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (item 31, Fig. 2 ([0047], lines 7-15));
coaxially aligning the first and second optical beams (as shown in Fig. 2 via the objective lens 42 ([0048]));
directing the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams into an objective lens disposed elevationally apart (item 42, Fig. 2 ([0048], lines 1-2 from bottom)), along a Z-axis (as shown in Fig. 1 or 2), from the quantity of photo-polymerizable material (item 2, Fig. 2) containing the first and second materials (e.g., the first light source 11 is a beam scanning light source that emits a light beam that plots light on the ultraviolet curable resin 2 ([0047], lines 3-5) and the second light source 31 is a blanket exposure light source that emits light that irradiates one fixed region of the ultraviolet curable resin 2 at a time ([0047], lines 10-12)), the objective lens focusing the coaxially aligned optical beams to an image plane on or within the quantity of polymerizable material (as shown in Fig. 2; [0054] (i.e., to form an image on the ultraviolet curable resin 2 (lines 1-2 from bottom)));
steering the coaxially aligned optical beams within the image plane and using the first and second optical beams to photo-polymerize (as shown in Fig. 1 ([0119] (i.e., the moving section 6 including x, y, and z moving direction))):
the first material using the first wavelength ([0047], lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 2, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated on Figs. 2, 3, 4, using the coaxially aligned optical beams to photopolymerize both of the first and second materials (as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4 ([0047])).
Regarding claim 3, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated on Figs. 2, 3, 4, combining the first and second optical beams (i.e., the beams from the sources 31 and 11, respectively ([0047])) before coaxially aligning the first and second optical beams (i.e., the beams coaxially aligning in the objective lens 42).
Regarding claim 4, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated on Figs. 2, 3, 4, the combining the first and second optical beams comprises using a dichroic mirror (item 41, Fig. 2 ([0047], lines 1-6 from bottom) (i.e., the beam splitter 41 is considered as a dichroic mirror)).
Regarding claim 5, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 4, the objective lens 42 scans the working region in the x direction, causing the light beam to strike in the vertical direction the ultraviolet curable resin 2 in the working region and forming an image telecentrically ([0060], lines 3-6). Thus, at least Kihara discloses the objective lens 42 may include a telecentric scan lens to direct the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams into the objective lens.
Regarding claims 8, 9, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, using a Z-axis motion control subsystem to adjustably position the objective lens along the Z-axis relative to the quantity of photo-polymerizable material and using a X-axis and Y-axis motion control subsystem to control movement within an X/Y plane of the quantity of photo-polymerizable material (as shown in Fig. 1 ([0119] (i.e., the moving section 6, which moves one of the moving platform 4 and the optical system 5, including x, y, and z moving direction))).
Regarding claim 10, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, generating the first optical beam comprises using a laser ([0050], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 16, using an electronic controller to control generation of at least one of the first or second optical beams (i.e., the data processing and control portion 101 of the control device 100 ([0130]) performs control of the precision plotting of the first light source 11 ([0131]) and the blanket plotting of the second light source 31 ([0132])).
Regarding claim 16, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, using an electronic controller to control at least one of: Z-axis adjustable positioning of the objective lens; or steering of the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams ([0046]).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kihara et al. (US 2008/0157412).
Regarding claim 19, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated on Figs. 1, 2, 5, a method for two photon printing using a quantity of photo- polymerizable material (item 2, Fig. 2 ([0046], lines 3-4 (i.e., a liquid ultraviolet curable resin))) having a first material photo-polymerizable via an optical signal at a first wavelength, and a second material photo-polymerizable via an optical signal at a second wavelength (ABSTRACT; [0047]), the method comprising:
generating a first optical beam at a first wavelength (item 11, Fig. 2 ([0047], lines 1-7));
generating a second optical beam at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (item 31, Fig. 2 ([0047], lines 7-15));
coaxially aligning the first and second optical beams (as shown in Fig. 2 via the objective lens 42 ([0048]));
directing the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams into an objective lens disposed elevationally apart (item 42, Fig. 2 ([0048], lines 1-2 from bottom)), along a Z-axis (as shown in Fig. 1 or 2), from the quantity of photo-polymerizable material (item 2, Fig. 2) containing the first and second materials (e.g., the first light source 11 is a beam scanning light source that emits a light beam that plots light on the ultraviolet curable resin 2 ([0047], lines 3-5) and the second light source 31 is a blanket exposure light source that emits light that irradiates one fixed region of the ultraviolet curable resin 2 at a time ([0047], lines 10-12)), the objective lens focusing the coaxially aligned optical beams to an image plane on or within the quantity of polymerizable material (as shown in Fig. 2; [0054] (i.e., to form an image on the ultraviolet curable resin 2 (lines 1-2 from bottom)));
steering the coaxially aligned optical beams within the image plane and using the first and second optical beams to photo-polymerize (as shown in Fig. 1 ([0119] (i.e., the moving section 6 including x, y, and z moving direction))):
only the first material using the first optical beam operating at the first wavelength ([0047], lines 3-5; it is noticed that, the first light source 11 is providing the precision plotting to the first material ([0131])).
Regarding claim 20, Kihara discloses that, the first material may also be photo-polymerizable via the second optical beam at the second wavelength, so that the second optical beam operating at the second wavelength is operative to also simultaneously polymerize the first material (i.e., it is noticed that, after the precision plotting of the first material, the second light source 31 is providing the blanket plotting to the second material which includes the region of the first material).
Regarding claim 21, Kihara discloses that, the second optical beam operating at the second wavelength is operative to only polymerize the second material (i.e., it is noticed that, after the precision plotting of the first material, the second light source 31 is providing the blanket plotting to the second material which includes the region of the first material).
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihara et al. (US 2008/0157412) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lipkowitz et al. (US 2025/0178280).
Regarding claims 6, 7, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 4, the objective lens 42 scans the working region in the x direction, causing the light beam to strike in the vertical direction the ultraviolet curable resin 2 in the working region and forming an image telecentrically ([0060], lines 3-6). Thus, at least Kihara discloses the objective lens 42 may include a telecentric scan lens to direct the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams into the objective lens.
However, Kihara does not explicitly disclose that, the objective lens comprises using a telecentric tube lens.
In the same field of endeavor, making polymeric microstructures, Lipkowitz discloses that, the light beam generator component comprises a light source, a tube lens, and one or more projection lenses ([0186], [0187], [0188], [0189]). Lipkowitz discloses that, in some instances, the tube lens is a telecentric lens ([0106], lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kihara to have the objective lens may include a telecentric scan lens to direct the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams into the objective lens as Lipkowitz teaches that it is known to have the objective lens comprises using a telecentric tube lens. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 11, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihara et al. (US 2008/0157412) as applied to claim 1/10 above, further in view of Hahn et al. (US 2024/0408815) and Lipkowitz et al. (US 2025/0178280).
Regarding claim 11, Kihara does not explicitly disclose that, using a laser comprises using a femtosecond laser generating a fixed wavelength beam at 1045 nm.
Lipkowitz discloses that, for example, one suitable broadband light source emits light having wavelengths from 200 nm to 1500 nm ([0102], lines 8-10) (overlapping the claimed range at a fixed wavelength beam at 1045 nm).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lipkowitz overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
In the same field of endeavor, photoresist in 3d printing, Hahn discloses that, to obtain efficient two-photon absorption, mode-locked pico- or femtosecond laser sources are routinely used ([0003], lines 6-7 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kihara to have a method for two photon printing using a quantity of photo- polymerizable material as Lipkowitz teaches that it is known to have one suitable broadband light source emits light having wavelengths from 200 nm to 1500 nm (overlapping the claimed range at a fixed wavelength beam at 1045 nm) and Hahn teaches that it is known to have femtosecond laser sources being routinely used. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 12, Kihara does not explicitly disclose that, generating the second optical beam comprises using a femtosecond laser generating a tunable wavelength from 680 nm to 1300 nm.
Lipkowitz discloses that, for example, one suitable broadband light source emits light having wavelengths from 200 nm to 1500 nm ([0102], lines 8-10) (overlapping the claimed range from 680 nm to 1300 nm).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lipkowitz overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Hahn discloses that, to obtain efficient two-photon absorption, mode-locked pico- or femtosecond laser sources are routinely used ([0003], lines 6-7 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kihara to have a method for two photon printing using a quantity of photo- polymerizable material as Lipkowitz teaches that it is known to have one suitable broadband light source emits light having wavelengths from 200 nm to 1500 nm ([0102], lines 8-10) (overlapping the claimed range from 680 nm to 1300 nm) and Hahn teaches that it is known to have femtosecond laser sources being routinely used. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 13, Kihara does not explicitly disclose that, using a laser comprises using a femtosecond laser generating a fixed wavelength beam at 1045 nm and generating the second optical beam comprises using a femtosecond laser generating a tunable wavelength from 680 nm to 1300 nm.
Lipkowitz discloses that, for example, one suitable broadband light source emits light having wavelengths from 200 nm to 1500 nm ([0102], lines 8-10) (overlapping the claimed range at a fixed wavelength beam at 1045 nm and from 680 nm to 1300 nm).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lipkowitz overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Hahn discloses that, to obtain efficient two-photon absorption, mode-locked pico- or femtosecond laser sources are routinely used ([0003], lines 6-7 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kihara to have a method for two photon printing using a quantity of photo- polymerizable material as Lipkowitz teaches that it is known to have one suitable broadband light source emits light having wavelengths from 200 nm to 1500 nm (overlapping the claimed range at a fixed wavelength beam at 1045 nm and 680 nm to 1300 nm) and Hahn teaches that it is known to have femtosecond laser sources being routinely used. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihara et al. (US 2008/0157412) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hahn et al. (US 2024/0408815).
Regarding claim 14, Kihara does not explicitly disclose that, initially using a pair of spaced apart fixed plates having first and second pinholes to align the fixed first optical beam such the that first optical beam is able to pass through the first and second pinholes; and using a pair of mirrors with kinematic mounts to align the second optical beam such that the second optical beam passes through the first and second pinholes.
Hahn discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 14, the focusing unit may comprise one or more of the following a collimator, a plano-convex lens, a pinhole, a mirror, a polarizer, and an objective lens ([0073]; [0149]). Hahn discloses that, in a more specific embodiment, the laser diode is mounted on a temperature-controlled mount (LDM56/M, Thorlabs GmbH) ([0150], lines 1-4). Thus, depending on the requirement of the focusing unit, Hahn will install at least two pinholes (via a pair of plates) to align the fixed first optical beam and two mirrors with kinematic mounts to align the second optical beam such that the second optical beam passes through the first and second pinholes.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kihara to have a method for two photon printing using a quantity of photo- polymerizable material as Hahn teaches that it is known to initially use a pair of spaced apart fixed plates having first and second pinholes to align the fixed first optical beam such the that first optical beam is able to pass through the first and second pinholes; and use a pair of mirrors with kinematic mounts to align the second optical beam such that the second optical beam passes through the first and second pinholes. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihara et al. (US 2008/0157412).
Regarding claim 17, Kihara discloses that, as illustrated on Figs. 1, 2, 5, a method for two photon printing using a quantity of photo- polymerizable material (item 2, Fig. 2 ([0046], lines 3-4 (i.e., a liquid ultraviolet curable resin))) having a first material photo-polymerizable via an optical signal at a first wavelength or a second optical signal at a second wavelength, and a second material photo-polymerizable via the second optical signal at the second wavelength (ABSTRACT; [0047]), the method comprising:
generating a first optical beam at a first fixed wavelength (item 11 (i.e., the precision plotting of the first light source 11 ([0131])), Fig. 2 ([0047], lines 1-7); it is noticed that, at least the first light source 11 is capable to provide the first fixed wavelength), and a second optical beam at a second tunable wavelength (item 31 (i.e., the blanket plotting of the second light source 31 ([0132])), Fig. 2 ([0047], lines 7-15); it is noticed that, at least the second light source 31 is capable of providing the first tunable wavelength);
using a dichroic mirror 41, Fig. 2 ([0047], lines 1-6 from bottom) (i.e., the beam splitter 41 is considered as a dichroic mirror)) to coaxially align the first and second optical beams (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2 via the objective lens 42 ([0048]));
using a 4f lens system (as shown in Fig. 5 ([0066])) to direct the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams into an objective lens disposed elevationally apart (item 42, Fig. 2 ([0048], lines 1-2 from bottom)), along a Z-axis (as shown in Fig. 1 or 2), from the quantity of photo-polymerizable material (item 2, Fig. 2) containing the first and second materials (e.g., the first light source 11 is a beam scanning light source that emits a light beam that plots light on the ultraviolet curable resin 2 ([0047], lines 3-5) and the second light source 31 is a blanket exposure light source that emits light that irradiates one fixed region of the ultraviolet curable resin 2 at a time ([0047], lines 10-12)), the objective lens focusing the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams to a focused image plane on or within the quantity of polymerizable material (as shown in Fig. 2; [0054] (i.e., to form an image on the ultraviolet curable resin 2 (lines 1-2 from bottom)));
using first and second galvanometer mirror subsystems (e.g., item 21 in Fig. 2 ([0049]) and item 22 in Fig. 2 ([0051])) to steer the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams within the image plane and using the coaxially aligned first and second optical beams to selectively photo-polymerize (as shown in Fig. 1 ([0119] (i.e., the moving section 6 including x, y, and z moving direction))):
the first material using the first wavelength ([0047], lines 3-5);
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kihara to have the method for two photon printing using a quantity of photo- polymerizable material as Kihara teaches that it is known to have the first light source with a first fixed wavelength and the second light source with a tunable wavelength. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights