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 .
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 15, 17, 39-41, 43-45, 48, and 50 have been examined.
Claims 9-10, 13-14, 16, 18-38, 42, 46-47, and 49 have been canceled by the applicants.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that in independent claims 1 and 48 (and thus also all dependent claims associated with the respective parent claim) include steps that are listed as optionally, whereupon, those particular optional steps are not required to be taught by a prior art reference to be considered as teaching the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 48 is 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.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the polymer bed" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear as the antecedent basis teaching is directed to a slurry bed, there being no teachings of a polymer bed. Further, if it is intended to be a polymer bed, there may arise other issues due to teachings of both a polymer and a slurry bed which may be written description issue.
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.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CIESZYNSKI (US 2018/0272613 A1).
Re 50, CIESZYNSKI teaches of an apparatus (see Figs. 1A-1C) for the additive manufacturing of components, in particular an apparatus for the volumetric printing of components through holograms (see use of holographic image, see [0019, 0020, 0037, 0038, 0042, 0043]), the apparatus comprising:
- a chamber in which a three-dimensional component (see work piece, object [0023-0025]) is additively manufactured (see work area 16);
- a powder holder for holding a powder bed (powder bed 12),
-at least one radiation generator (see laser source 18); and
-at least one radiation applicator per generator (see laser 30, projecting optics 48).
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(s) 1-8, 11-12, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CIESZYNSKI (US 2018/0272613 A1) in view of LVOV (US 2021/0362403 A1).
Re 1, CIESZYNSKI teaches of a method for the additive manufacturing of components, in particular a method for the volumetric printing of components through holograms (see use of holographic image, see [0019, 0020, 0037, 0038, 0042, 0043]) comprising the following steps:
Step 1: providing a powder bed (see work area 16 and powder bed 12)comprising at least one layer of powder;
Step 2: exposing at least part of the powder bed to radiation (see laser beam, see abstract and [0005-0010, 0016-0017]) to consolidate only part of the powder in the powder bed;
Step 3: optionally, providing an additional layer of powder adjacent to the previously consolidated or at least partially consolidated layer of powder to form successive powder layers of the powder bed (see [0070-0071] of successive powder layers, see also spreading material via roller motion mechanism 14, see [0021, 0024]);
Step 4: optionally, repeating step 2 (see [0025, 0070]);
Step 5: optionally, repeating steps 3 and 4 until the component is completely additively manufactured (see [0070] in forming object); and
Regarding Step 6: separating the consolidated or partially consolidated powder from the unconsolidated powder in the powder bed. The CIESZYNSKI reference does not specifically state of separating the unconsolidated powder.
However, in related reference of forming products in a powder bed, the LVOV reference teaches of forming a product 8 from a powder, and wherein the use of a radiation in forming product (see [0046, 0050], and wherein the product is removed from excess powder, see [0047]. Wherein, the removal of the product from the powder bed is a known and obvious process of product removal from a work area, and further it would include the separation of the unconsolidated powder which corresponds to the excess powder of LVOV.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of CIESZYNSKI with the product removal as taught by LVOV, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein there are points in the powder bed which are exposed to a higher radiation field strength than other points in the powder bed at least at one point in time in step 2.
See CIESZYNSKI, with the adjustment of the intensity, see [0025]. Wherein, this can be seen as the exposure at higher radiation strength at other points in the powder bed.
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein at a first point in time in step 2, there is a first subset of points in the powder bed which is exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than a second subset of points in the powder bed; and wherein at a second point in time in step 2, the second subset of points in the powder bed is exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than the first subset of points in the powder bed.
See CIESZYNSKI, with the adjustment of the intensity, see [0025]. Wherein, this can be seen as the exposure at higher radiation strength at other points in the powder bed, the adjustment wound encompass the different subsets.
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein at a first point in time in step 2, there are a first and a second subset of points in the powder bed which are exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than a third subset of points in the powder bed; and wherein at a second point in time in step 2, the second and third subset of points in the powder bed are exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than the first subset of points in the powder bed.
See CIESZYNSKI, with the adjustment of the intensity, see [0025]. Wherein, this can be seen as the exposure at higher radiation strength at other points in the powder bed, the adjustment wound encompass the different subsets.
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein at a first point in time in step 2, there is a first subset of points in the powder bed which is exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than a second subset of points in the powder bed; and wherein at a second point in time in step 2, there is no significant difference between the radiation field strength to which the first and second subset of points are exposed.
See CIESZYNSKI, with the adjustment of the intensity, see [0025]. Wherein, this can be seen as the exposure at higher radiation strength at other points in the powder bed, the adjustment wound encompass the different subsets.
Re 6 (upon 1), wherein at a first point in time in step 2, there is a first subset of points in the powder bed which is exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than a second subset of points in the powder bed; wherein at a second point in time in step 2, there is no significant difference between the radiation field strength to which the first and second subset of points are exposed; and wherein at a third point in time in step 2, the second subset of points in the powder bed is exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than the first subset of points in the powder bed.
See CIESZYNSKI, with the adjustment of the intensity, see [0025]. Wherein, this can be seen as the exposure at higher radiation strength at other points in the powder bed, the adjustment wound encompass the different subsets. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize of different strengths and at different subsets as desired for the adjustment.
Re 7 (upon 1), wherein at a first point in time in step 2, there is a first subset of points in the powder bed which is exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than a second subset of points in the powder bed; wherein at a second point in time in step 2, there is no significant difference in the radiation field strength to which the first and second subset of points are exposed; wherein at a third point in time in step 2, the second subset of points in the powder bed is exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than the first subset of points in the powder bed; and wherein at a fourth point in time in step 2, the first subset of points in the powder bed is exposed to a substantially higher radiation field strength than the second subset of points in the powder bed.
See CIESZYNSKI, with the adjustment of the intensity, see [0025]. Wherein, this can be seen as the exposure at higher radiation strength at other points in the powder bed, the adjustment wound encompass the different subsets. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize of different strengths and at different subsets as desired for the adjustment and in which having the different points and subsets in time can be seen as duplication of operating sets.
Re 8 (upon 7), wherein the second point in time is later than the first point in time, wherein the third point in time is later than the second point in time, and wherein the fourth point in time is later than the third point in time.
See CIESZYNSKI, with the adjustment of the intensity, see [0025]. Wherein, this can be seen as the exposure at higher radiation strength at other points in the powder bed, the adjustment wound encompass the different subsets. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize of different strengths and at different subsets as desired for the adjustment, particularly with the different points of time can be modification of the operating points and additional points would be a multiplication of operating parts.
Re 11 (upon 1), wherein the radiation comprises electromagnetic radiation.
Wherein, CIESZYNSKI teaches of a laser beam which corresponds to the claimed electromagnetic radiation.
Re 12 (upon 7), wherein the points of each subset of points are not in every case adjacent to each other.
It is noted in [0025] of CIESZYNSKI teaches of adjacent areas of the powdered medium that do not form part of the layer of the object may be evaluated to ensure they are not being heated to melting points of the powdered medium to ensure those areas are not fused, and further background heated can be evaluated and adjusted. Wherein, the different heating levels can occur between adjacent areas which implies of subset of points that are not in every case adjacent to each other as some adjacent points are at different operating conditions in the formation of the object.
Re 39 (upon 1), wherein the radiation to which the powder bed is exposed in step 2 is a proper radiation, and wherein the proper radiation is a radiation with a frequency between 0.0002 and 120 THz or less.
The claimed radiation frequency range would encompass the teachings of radiation in both CIESZYNSKI of lasers and LVOV of microwaves.
Claim(s) 15, 40, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CIESZYNSKI in view of LVOV as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of HACHTMANN (US 2025/0353252 A1).
Re 15 (upon 7), CIESZYNSKI does not teach of wherein each point is a voxel, and wherein the voxel is a polyhedron with cubic geometry and an edge length of 0.001 mm.
Wherein HACHTMANN teaches in the related use of 3D printing (abstract) and of the use of hologram images, see [0091] or use of holographic projection [0143], and of the 3D object being of the 3D volume and the use of voxels, see [0070], and wherein, the voxel count and dimensions can include resolution at the micrometer and nanometer scale, see [0044], and of the voxel having a volume in the cubic micrometers, see [0042], which would encompass the claimed edge length. The cubic shape encompasses the claimed polyhedron.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified CIESZYNSKI with the voxel formation as taught by HACHTMANN as known addressable volume of 3D printing, see under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 40 (upon 1), wherein the radiation to which the powder bed is exposed in step 2 is a proper radiation, and wherein the proper radiation is applied using at least 2 radiation emitters.
Re 41 (upon 1), wherein the radiation to which the powder bed is exposed in step 2 is a proper radiation, and wherein the proper radiation is applied using at least 2 different frequencies.
Regarding claims 40 and 41, see teaching by HACHTMANN with the different projection and of different energy, and of the different optical elements, see [0147-0150], wherein, the operation of different emitters and of different wavelengths. Regarding the teaching of different wavelengths taught by HACHTMANN, this would affect frequency, as wavelength being proportionally inverse to frequency and thus the changes taught in HACHTMANN would encompass the claimed different frequencies.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified CIESZYNSKI with the radiation emission as taught by HACHTMANN in curing of the 3D object, see under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17, 40, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CIESZYNSKI in view of LVOV as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of MATHEU (US 2022/0081674 A1).
Re 17 (upon 7), CIESZYNSKI does not teach of: wherein at a first point in time in step 2, there is a first subset of points in the powder bed which is exposed to a radiation field strength that is 26% or more higher than a second subset of points in the powder bed; wherein at a second point in time in step 2, any difference in the radiation field strength to which the first and second subset of points are exposed is 19% or less; wherein at a third point in time in step 2, the second subset of points in the powder bed is exposed to a radiation field strength that is 26% or more higher than the first subset of points in the powder bed; and wherein at a fourth point in time in step 2, the first subset of points in the powder bed is exposed to a radiation field strength that is 26% or more higher than the second subset of points in the powder bed.
Wherein, the MATHEU reference teaches of operation with different peak power output, see [0195], and see also [0196] and Table 1. Further see difference between the energy provided, see [0222-0224], and the differences would encompass the claim percentage difference of operating field strength between the points. Here, the difference in power output of MATHEU is capable of operating of the different radiation field strength and the different power output being applied to the different subsets in the formation of the formed object.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified CIESZYNSKI with the different field strength as taught by MATHEU for the formation of the 3D object, see under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 40 (upon 1), wherein the radiation to which the powder bed is exposed in step 2 is a proper radiation, and wherein the proper radiation is applied using at least 2 radiation emitters.
Re 41 (upon 1), wherein the radiation to which the powder bed is exposed in step 2 is a proper radiation, and wherein the proper radiation is applied using at least 2 different frequencies.
The MATHEU reference teaches of plural laser source (radiation emitters), see Table 1, see laser sources 140a-140c, and of the different power, see watts and wavelengths, and of the lasers being projections at different wavelengths, see [0196].
Regarding the teaching of different wavelengths taught by MATHEU, this would affect frequency, as wavelength being proportionally inverse to frequency and thus the changes taught in HACHTMANN would encompass the claimed different frequencies
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified CIESZYNSKI with the different emitters and frequencies as taught by MATHEU for the formation of the 3D object, see under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 43-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CIESZYNSKI in view of LVOV as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GUERRIER (US 2021/0089003A1).
Re 43 (upon 1), wherein said method comprises the use of a sequence of holograms and the use of machine learning to generate the sequence of control variables which generates the sequence of holograms.
Re 44 (upon 1), wherein said method comprises the use of a sequence of holograms and the use of machine learning trained with a transformation from the input vector, containing all the possible combinations of the control variables and the scalar output, which is the radiation field intensity map comprising the value for each point in the powder bed, to generate the sequence of values for each control variable that generates the sequence of holograms.
Re 45 (upon 1), wherein said method comprises the use of a sequence of holograms and the use of machine learning trained with a transformation from the input vector, containing all the possible combinations of the control variables and the scalar output, which is the degree of consolidation map comprising the value for each point in the powder bed, to generate the sequence of values for each control variable that generates the sequence of holograms.
In regards to claims 43-45, the modified CIERSZYNSKI reference fails to teach of the use of a machine learning.
In the same field of endeavor in additive manufacturing, the GUERRIER reference teaches of the use of a trained AI module 56 that variables including data and build layer images 48, see [0021]. Wherein the teaching by GUERRIER of the build layer images corresponding to the claimed use of the sequence of holograms.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of CIESZYNSKI in view of LVOV with the use of machine learning of GUERRIER in forming an object, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as applying a known technique (process of GUERRIER) to a known device (method or product) (in this case of the modified CIESZYNSKI) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CIESZYNSKI (US 2018/0272613 A1) in view of HUGHES (US 2021/0292243 A1), and further in view of LVOV (US 2021/0362403 A1).
Re 48, CIESZYNSKI teaches of a method for the additive manufacturing of components, in particular a method for the volumetric printing of components through holograms (see use of holographic image, see [0019, 0020, 0037, 0038, 0042, 0043]), comprising the following steps:
Step 1: providing a bed (see work area 16 and powder bed 12) comprising at least one layer of material (powder);
Step 2: exposing at least part of the bed to radiation (see laser beam, see abstract and [0005-0010, 0016-0017]) to cure only part of the layer in the bed;
Step 3: optionally, providing an additional layer of slurry adjacent to the previously cured or at least partially cured layer of slurry to form successive layers of the slurry bed (see [0070-0071] of successive powder layers, see also spreading material via roller motion mechanism 14, see [0021, 0024]);
Step 4: optionally, repeating step 2 (see [0025, 0070]);
Step 5: optionally, repeating steps 3 and 4 until the component is completely additively manufactured (see [0070] in forming object).
The claimed features are similar to those of claim 1, though it is directed to powder compared to slurry, and CIESZYNSKI does not teach of the use of slurry in forming the product.
Further, regarding Step 6: separating the cured or partially cured slurry from the uncured slurry in the slurry bed, the CIESZYNSKI reference does not specifically state of separating the unconsolidated material from the product.
Wherein regarding the slurry, in this case, the HUGHES reference teaches in the same field of endeavor and in which slurry which is in a bed (vat 214) and having laser (202, 502), and wherein the photopolymerizable slurry (see also 519) to be cure, see [0098, 0100]. Wherein, the slurry bed in a vat for forming an object is a known material used in additive manufacturing and as an alternative to the powder used in additive manufacturing process of CIESZYNSKI.
Regarding the separation of the unconsolidated slurry, in related reference of forming products in a powder bed, the LVOV reference teaches of forming a product 8 from a powder, and wherein the use of a radiation in forming product, see [0046, 0050], and wherein the product is removed from excess powder, see [0047]. Wherein, the removal of the product from the powder bed is a known and obvious process of product removal from a work area, and further it would include the separation of the unconsolidated powder which corresponds to the excess powder of LVOV.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of CIESZYNSKI with the use of slurry as taught by HUGHES in forming an object, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and further with the product removal as taught by LVOV, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
