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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17, 19-26, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalderink et al. (US 2009/0289384 A1) in view of Elsey et al. (US 2021/0294210 A1, with earlier foreign priority date).
Regarding claim 17, Maalderink et al. teach a method additive manufacturing, the method comprising: (a) providing an additive manufacturing apparatus including a build platform and a light transmissive window (see Fig 1, item 10-carrier platform as the build platform, and item 4 as light transmissive window), said build platform and said window defining a build region there between (Fig. 1 item 5- object); (b) advancing said build platform toward said window and/or advancing said window toward said build platform until said build platform (see [0016]-[0023] discloses movement of the build platform and/or window as necessary for forming the object and release of the object).
Maalderink et al. further disclose that forming object based on detection of force (see [0021] The system 1 further includes a controller 7. The actuator 8 and the phase-transformer 6 are connected to respective controller outputs 71, 72 of the controller 7. The controller 7 can control the production of the object 5 based on a determined value of the force exerted on the reference platform 4 or the layer 50 or based on a parameter related to this force, e.g. the acceleration or the shape and/or surface area of the layer 50 that is being formed. The determined value may be determined in any suitable manner. For instance, the controller 7 may receive a measurement value from a sensor 9. In the example of FIG. 1, for instance, the controller 7 is connected with a controller input 70 to a force sensor 9. The force sensor can measure the force exerted on the reference platform 4 relative to the object 5 and output to the controller 7 a measured value of the force. Based on this measured value, the controller can control, for example, the actuator 8 or the phase-transformer 6.)
Maalderink et al. teach a controller is used to compare the measured force value taken with the set value in order to further complete or halt the process for the benefit of reducing damage to the object that is being produced (see [0026]-[0032]), and discloses that any other variation maybe implemented to detect the force as necessary (see [0030]-[0031]).
However, Maalderink et al. fail to explicitly teach halting process based on fallen object on the build platform using the force sensor, or retracting the build platform, or a combination in response to said detection of said build platform with said fallen additively manufactured object.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to making 3D printed object, Elsey et al. teach halting process based on fallen object on the build platform using the force sensor, or retracting the build platform, or a combination in response to said detection of said build platform with said fallen additively manufactured object (see [0061] discloses FIG. 5 shows the apparatus 100 having a piece of solid debris 601 disposed between the object being made 122 and the element 101. The debris 601 may be hardened material 401 resulting from a partially formed object detaching from the platform 121, material which has been hardened due to stray radiation in the system (both common and problematic occurrence in stereolithographic processes) or foreign matter, for example. Moving the object being made 122 towards the element 101 may cause the object being made 122 to collide with the debris 601 which results in forces applied to the object being made 122 and the sheet 101. This may result in damage to the object 122 and/or the sheet 101. The tactile sensor 401 generates force and/or contact position information comprising an x and y coordinates (x′,y′) as shown in FIG. 6. A signal comprising the information is sent to controller 160 and further motion of the positioner 120 is halted by the controller. The controller may generate an alert in the form of a light, sound or electronic message for example, notifying the user of a fault.).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the instant application to have modified the controller as taught by Maalderink et al. with further including the controller to detect via the force sensor of a fallen object, during the process of forming 3D printed object, as taught by Elsey et al. for the benefit of improved process for making an object ([0004]), thereby reducing product defect, system failure.
Regarding clam 26, Maalderink et al. teach an apparatus useful for making a three-dimensional object from a polymerizable resin ([0016]-[0042]; Fig. 1), comprising:
(a) a build platform on which a three-dimensional object can be made (Fig 1 item 20-carrier platform as the build platform on which 3D object 5 can be built); (b) a light transmissive window having a build surface operatively associated with said build platform, said build platform and said build surface defining a build region therebetween, said window configured to support a resin pool thereon (see 1, item 4 -reference platform has to be light transmissive to have phaser transformer 6 applying energy; [0021]-[0022]);
(c) an elevator assembly operatively associated with said build platform and/or said window, said elevator assembly configured for advancing said build platform and said window away from one another to draw a polymerizable liquid into said build region (Fig. 1 item 8-actuator as the elevator assembly that is able to move carrier platform 10 and/or 4-ref platform; see [0019][0020]);
(d) a light engine operatively associated with said window and positioned to irradiate said build region with light to form a growing three-dimensional object from said resin (Fig. 1 item 6-phase transformer operatively associated with said window-4; [0021][0036] transparent window for radiation);
(e) a force sensor operatively associated with said platform and/or said window ([0021]), and (f) a controller operatively associated with said build platform, said light engine, said elevator assembly, and said force sensor, said controller configured to halt production of said additive manufacturing apparatus ([0026]-[0027], [0021]-[0023]), however, fails to explicitly teach that the force sensor is configured to detect contact of said build platform with a fallen additively manufactured object using the force sensor; and the controller configured to generate an alarm, retract the build platform, or a combination of the foregoing, in response to said detection of said build platform with said fallen additively manufactured object.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to making 3D printed object, Elsey et al. teach that the force sensor is configured to detect contact of said build platform with a fallen additively manufactured object using the force sensor; and the controller configured to generate an alarm, retract the build platform, or a combination of the foregoing, in response to said detection of said build platform with said fallen additively manufactured object (see [0061] discloses FIG. 5 shows the apparatus 100 having a piece of solid debris 601 disposed between the object being made 122 and the element 101. The debris 601 may be hardened material 401 resulting from a partially formed object detaching from the platform 121, material which has been hardened due to stray radiation in the system (both common and problematic occurrence in stereolithographic processes) or foreign matter, for example. Moving the object being made 122 towards the element 101 may cause the object being made 122 to collide with the debris 601 which results in forces applied to the object being made 122 and the sheet 101. This may result in damage to the object 122 and/or the sheet 101. The tactile sensor 401 generates force and/or contact position information comprising an x and y coordinates (x′,y′) as shown in FIG. 6. A signal comprising the information is sent to controller 160 and further motion of the positioner 120 is halted by the controller. The controller may generate an alert in the form of a light, sound or electronic message for example, notifying the user of a fault.).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the instant application to have modified the controller as taught by Maalderink et al. with further including the controller to detect via the force sensor of a fallen object, during the process of forming 3D printed object, as taught by Elsey et al. for the benefit of improved apparatus for making an object ([0004]), thereby reducing product defect, system failure.
As for claims 19-20 and 28-29, Maalderink et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein (c) detecting said contact of said build platform with said fallen additively manufactured object comprises comparing a data set from said force sensor during actual production with a predetermined dataset in which no collision occurred; wherein (c) detecting said contact of said build platform with said fallen additively manufactured object further comprises detecting an error between force sensed during actual production and said predetermined dataset, and flagging a collision if said error exceeds a threshold.
Elsey et al. teach or provides suggestion for wherein (c) detecting said contact of said build platform with said fallen additively manufactured object comprises comparing a data set from said force sensor during actual production with a predetermined dataset in which no collision occurred; wherein (c) detecting said contact of said build platform with said fallen additively manufactured object further comprises detecting an error between force sensed during actual production and said predetermined dataset, and flagging a collision if said error exceeds a threshold (see [0061] discloses FIG. 5 shows the apparatus 100 having a piece of solid debris 601 disposed between the object being made 122 and the element 101. The debris 601 may be hardened material 401 resulting from a partially formed object detaching from the platform 121, material which has been hardened due to stray radiation in the system (both common and problematic occurrence in stereolithographic processes) or foreign matter, for example. Moving the object being made 122 towards the element 101 may cause the object being made 122 to collide with the debris 601 which results in forces applied to the object being made 122 and the sheet 101. This may result in damage to the object 122 and/or the sheet 101. The tactile sensor 401 generates force and/or contact position information comprising an x and y coordinates (x′,y′) as shown in FIG. 6. A signal comprising the information is sent to controller 160 and further motion of the positioner 120 is halted by the controller. The controller may generate an alert in the form of a light, sound or electronic message for example, notifying the user of a fault.; [0048]-[0055]).
As for 21 – 25 and 30-33, Maalderink et al. provides suggestion for having stationary window in the lateral direction (see [0019]); said light engine comprises a light source in combination with a patterning array (see [0036], [0005] are known light sources). Maalderink et al. fail to explicitly teach further comprising: (e) detecting an impact of said build platform with a resin top surface portion; and (f) determining a fill level of a resin pool from said detected impact; producing an object on said build platform from resin with said apparatus when (i) said fill level is above a minimum fill level and/or (ii) below a maximum fill level.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to stereolithography, Elsey et al. teach or provides suggestion for detecting an impact of said build platform with a resin top surface portion and producing an object on said build platform from resin with said apparatus when (i) said fill level is desired (above a minimum fill level and/or (ii) below a maximum fill level) (see [0015]-[0016] discloses processor is configured to use the force information to determine a quantity material; [0061]-0067]), thus is capable of maintaining desired fill level for forming the object as claimed, for the same benefit as discussed above. Additional recitation pertaining to halting production of objects on said build platform from said resin with said apparatus, and/or generating an alarm signal, when (i) said fill level is below a minimum fill level and/or (ii) above a maximum fill level; said apparatus further comprising a resin dispenser, said method further comprising the step of: dispensing additional resin into said pool when said fill level is below a minimum fill level, would have been obvious over Elsey et al. for the benefit of producing object with appropriate amount of resin ([0061]-[0065],[0015]-[0016], [0029]).
Claim(s) 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalderink et al. (US 2009/0289384 A1) in view of Elsey et al. (US 2021/0294210 A1, with earlier foreign priority date) in further view of Prucha et al. (US 2020/0139619 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Maalderink and Elsey et al., teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein the force sensor comprises a strain gauge.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Prucha et al. teach wherein the force sensor comprise a strain gauge (see [0056]), for the benefit of efficiently forming 3D printed object.
It would have been obvious to use force sensor such as a gauge sensor, as exemplified by Prucha et al., for the providing similar predictable result of detecting force on a surface, for further benefit of efficiently forming an object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11,390,027 B2 - Techniques for force sensing in additive fabrication are provided. According to some aspects, an additive fabrication device may include a force sensor configured to measure a force applied to a build platform during fabrication. A length of time taken for a layer of material to separate from a surface other than the build platform to which it is adhered may be determined based on measurements from the force sensor. Subsequent additive fabrication operations, such as subsequent motion of the build platform, may be adapted based on the determined length of time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights