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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “100” has been used to designate display module, display cartridge system, and stereolithography system; see [0031], [0037]-[0040], [0046], [0050], [0057]-[0059], and [0063]-[0064] of instant application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" and "102" have both been used to designate display module; see [0031], [0039]-[0040], and [0046]-[0047].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the organic and inorganic polarizers are near-ultraviolet (NUV) polarizers. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, "inorganic polarizer", in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the organic and inorganic polarizers are positioned on opposite ends of the display module. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, "inorganic polarizer", in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2022/0347921 (“Park et al” hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 1, Park teaches a display cartridge system for use with a three-dimensional (3D) printer for printing a 3D-object (Figure 1 and abstract), comprising: a display module (Figure 1, the combination of blacklight module 200 and image switching module 300) including a display panel (Figure 1, image switching module 300 comprises LCD unit 310 [0054]) and a light engine (Figure 1, blacklight module 200 comprises LED board 220), the display module configured to be removably coupled to a material tank of the 3D-printer ([0038], light engine case detachably mounted under the tank 50 ); and a support structure (Figure 1, light engine case 100) housing the display module (Figure 1 and [0041]), the support structure configured to be removably coupled to a base of the 3D-printer ([0038], light engine case detachably mounted under the tank 50 which is the base of the 3D printing system 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 1, wherein the display panel is transparent (Figure 1 and [0054], the image switching module 300 may be configured to include an LCD unit 310 and a transparent support member 320).
Regarding Claim 13, Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 1, wherein the support structure is further configured to support (Figure 1 and [0041]) and to be removably coupled to the display panel (Figure 1 and [0014], an image switching module 300 detachably installed in the upper portion of the accommodation space of the light engine case 100; thus, the image switching module can be detachably removed from the light engine case).
Regarding Claim 14, Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 1, wherein the display panel is positioned below the material tank and above the light engine (Figure 1, image switching module 300 is located below the tank 50 and above the blacklight module 200).
Regarding Claim 15, Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 1, wherein the light engine and the display panel are in communication with a printing control system of the 3D printer (Figure 1 and [0036], the control unit 60 may control individual light emission regions while controlling a backlight module 200 , an image switching module 300), the printing control system configured to control a light emitted by the light engine to a printing platform through the display panel and thereby selectively polymerize a layer of the print material ([0037]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 16, Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 1, wherein the display panel is configured to increase a transmittance ratio of a light from the light engine (Figure 1 and [0056], the image switching module 300 comprises LCD unit 310 and the function of the LCD unit is to increase transmittance ratio).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0347921 (“Park et al” hereinafter Park) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2023/0150200 (“Goldman et al” hereinafter Goldman).
Regarding Claim 2, Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the display panel includes a liquid crystal layer, a first polarizer, a second polarizer, a glass layer, and at least one lens.
However, Goldman teaches wherein the display panel (Figure 8) includes a liquid crystal layer (Figure 8, liquid crystal cell 200), a first polarizer (Figure 8, first polarizer 230c), a second polarizer (Figure 8, second polarizer 240), a glass layer ([0042], the liquid crystal panel 200 may further include one or more glass layers 250 to provide support and protection for the liquid crystal panel 200), and at least one lens (Figure 8, a collimating lens 810 and a diverging lens 850).
Park and Goldman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of stereolithography and using light source to cure photocurable material to form 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the display panel as taught by Park such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Goldman to provide high resolution dimensional grid with a minimized optical path between the liquid crystal panel and the fabricated layer of the component. Reducing the optical path minimizes potential thermal drift between the curing system and the resin within the basin, ensuring a more precise definition of the fabricated part ([0029]).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 2, wherein the first and second polarizers are disposed on opposite ends of the display panel (Goldman, Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 2, wherein the first and second polarizers are near-ultraviolet (NUV) polarizers (Goldman, [0049], the first polarizer 230, the second polarizer 240, or both, may include a thin-film dielectric polarizer optimized for transmission of the 405 nm wavelength, which is near-ultraviolet wavelength).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 2, wherein the first polarizer is an organic polarizer configured to filter a light from the light engine (Goldman, [0012], the first polarizer includes a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) matrix and an organic dye impregnated into the PVA matrix).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 2, wherein the liquid crystal layer is configured to selectively modulate a light from the light engine (Goldman, Figure 8, liquid crystal cell 200, the function of liquid crystal cell is to modulate optical properties).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 2, wherein the at least one lens (Goldman, Figure 8, a collimating lens 810 and a diverging lens 850) is coupled to the light engine and is configured to focus and direct a light from the light engine ([0076]).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 2, wherein the first and second polarizers are configured to allow a passage of light from the light engine when in a parallel state (Goldman, [0076]).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 2, wherein the first and second polarizers are configured to block a passage of light from the light engine when in a crossed state (Goldman, [0045], the liquid crystals are twisted such that light passing through the liquid crystal is not rotated and does not pass through the second polarizer 240).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0347921 (“Park et al” hereinafter Park) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of CN109188757 (“Han et al” hereinafter Han), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the second polarizer is an inorganic polarizer configured to adjust an intensity of a light from the light engine.
However, Han teaches the second polarizer is an inorganic polarizer (page 9, lines 7-12, the polarizer is a metal wire grid polarizer) configured to adjust an intensity of a light from the light engine (page 9, lines 7-12).
Park and Han are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of stereolithography and using light source to cure photocurable material to form 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the display panel as taught by Park such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Han to improve the transmittance of light (page 9, lines 7-12).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0347921 (“Park et al” hereinafter Park) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US2009/0122520 (Kuroiwa).
Regarding Claim 12, Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the support structure is a cradle assembly.
However, Kuroiwa teaches the support structure is a cradle assembly (Figure 4A and Figure 5, light source holder 6b, 6c and 6d is a crib shaped and holds the liquid crystal displace device).
Park and Kuroiwa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of liquid crystal display device with a support structure to support the liquid crystal display device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the support structure as taught by Park such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Kuroiwa to facilitate the ability to insert and remove the light source effectively ([0010]).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0347921 (“Park et al” hereinafter Park), in view of US2023/0150200 (“Goldman et al” hereinafter Goldman) and US2009/0122520 (Kuroiwa).
Regarding Claim 17, Park teaches a display cartridge system for use with a three-dimensional (3D) printer for printing a 3D-object (Figure 1 and abstract), comprising: a display module (Figure 1, the combination of blacklight module 200 and image switching module 300), the display module including a light engine (Figure 1, blacklight module 200 comprises LED board 220), the display module configured to be removably coupled to a resin tank of the 3D printer ([0038], light engine case detachably mounted under the tank 50 ); an assembly configured to be removably coupled to the display module at to a base of the 3D-printer ([0038], light engine case detachably mounted under the tank 50 which is the base of the 3D printing system 1).
Park fails to teach the display module including an at least two polarizers, a liquid crystal layer,
However, Goldman teaches wherein the display module (Figure 8) includes an at least two polarizers (Figure 8, first polarizer 230c and second polarizer 240), a liquid crystal layer (Figure 8, liquid crystal cell 200).
Park and Goldman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of stereolithography and using light source to cure photocurable material to form 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the display panel as taught by Park such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Goldman to provide high resolution dimensional grid with a minimized optical path between the liquid crystal panel and the fabricated layer of the component. Reducing the optical path minimizes potential thermal drift between the curing system and the resin within the basin, ensuring a more precise definition of the fabricated part ([0029]).
The modified Park fails to teach a cradle assembly housing the display module.
However, Kuroiwa teaches a cradle assembly housing the display module (Figure 4A and Figure 5, light source holder 6b, 6c and 6d is a crib shaped and holds the liquid crystal displace device).
Park and Kuroiwa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of liquid crystal display device with a support structure to support the liquid crystal display device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the assembly as taught by Park such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Kuroiwa to facilitate the ability to insert and remove the light source effectively ([0010])
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 17, wherein the display module further includes at least one lens (Goldman, Figure 8, a collimating lens 810 and a diverging lens 850), a glass layer ([0042], the liquid crystal panel 200 may further include one or more glass layers 250 to provide support and protection for the liquid crystal panel 200) and a lid (Figure 10, side wall member 1050).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 17, wherein one of the at least two polarizers is an organic polarizer configured to filter a light from the light engine (Goldman, [0012], the first polarizer includes a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) matrix and an organic dye impregnated into the PVA matrix).
Claim(s) 20-21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0347921 (“Park et al” hereinafter Park), in view of US2023/0150200 (“Goldman et al” hereinafter Goldman) and US2009/0122520 (Kuroiwa) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of CN109188757 (“Han et al” hereinafter Han), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 19, but fails to teach wherein one of the at least two polarizers is an inorganic polarizer configured to adjust an intensity of a light from the light engine.
However, Han teaches one of the at least two polarizers is an inorganic polarizer (page 9, lines 7-12, the polarizer is a metal wire grid polarizer) configured to adjust an intensity of a light from the light engine (page 9, lines 7-12).
Park and Han are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of stereolithography and using light source to cure photocurable material to form 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the display panel as taught by Park such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Han to improve the transmittance of light (page 9, lines 7-12).
Regarding Claim 21, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 19, wherein the organic (Goldman, [0049], the first polarizer 230, the second polarizer 240 , or both, may include a thin-film dielectric polarizer optimized for transmission of the 405 nm wavelength, which is near-ultraviolet wavelength) is near-ultraviolet (NUV) polarizers, but fails to teach inorganic polarizers is near-ultraviolet (NUV) polarizers.
However, Han teaches one of the at least one polarizer is an inorganic polarizer (page 9, lines 7-12, the polarizer is a metal wire grid polarizer) and is a near-ultraviolet (NUV) polarizer (page 9, lines 4-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the display panel as taught by Park such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Han to improve the transmittance of light (page 9, lines 4-13).
Regarding Claim 22, the modified Park teaches the display cartridge system of claim 19, wherein the organic polarizers are positioned on opposite ends of the display module (Goldman, Figure 8, [0012], the first polarizer includes a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) matrix and an organic dye impregnated into the PVA matrix). Goldman fails to teach the second polarizer is an inorganic polarizers.
However, Han teaches one of the at least one polarizer is an inorganic polarizer (page 9, lines 7-12, the polarizer is a metal wire grid polarizer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the display panel as taught by Park such that it discloses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Han to improve the transmittance of light (page 9, lines 4-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights