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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 still contains the language from the parent application where claim 12 still existed. Claim 1 needs amended to correct this deficiency.
For examination purposes claim 1 will be interpreted (based on the parent application and instant disclosure for proper antecedent basis and enablement) as follows:
A method, comprising:
positioning a print head of a stereolithography 3D printer (SLA printer)
aligning the magnetically responsive particles in the resin composition with a magnetic field generated by
SLA printing the resin composition comprising the magnetically responsive particles to form a solid layer comprising the aligned magnetically responsive particles.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4 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.
Claims 2-4 are seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear as to whether or not an Autodesk Ember printer is required or not. The phrases “separation slide velocity” and “approach slide velocity” appear to be used exclusively in connection with Autodesk Ember SLA printers, the Examiner could not find another printer that used such parameters. Therefore, do claims 2-4 require an Autodesk Ember SLA printer to be used as the SLA printer?
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Safaee et al (Investigation of a Magnetic Field-Assisted Digital-Light-Processing Stereolithography for Functionally Graded Materials: herein Safaee).
Regarding claim 1:
Safaee teaches in Figure 1 a SLA printer with a print head (print bed), a resin vat, and a magnet holder on the print head. The resin vat of Safaee contains iron oxide (Fe3O4) per section 2.1. During printing layer-by-layer (Section 2.2 second paragraph page 733) the magnets aligns the particles as discussed in the first paragraph of Section 2.2, the first paragraph of Section 3, and as seen in Figure 4.
Regarding claims 5 and 6:
Safaee teaches using 0.5 wt% Fe3O4 per section 2.1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adafruit Industries (Ember 3D Printer from Autodesk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p9xnjGKCT0), in view of Safaee.
Regarding claim 1:
Adafruit Industries shows the operation of an Autodesk Ember SLA printer from timestamp 00:22 through 00:56. This shows a print head being position onto a resin composition where each layer is cured. Adafruit Industries does not discuss the use of magnetically responsive particles in the resin, or the use of a magnet to align the magnetically responsive particles.
In the same field of SLA printing Safaee, as previously discussed, teaches using a print head with magnets to align magnetic particles in the resin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the magnets to the print head and use magnetic particles, as taught by Safaee, since doing so allows for the creation of functionally graded materials with customizable magnetic gradations (Safaee: Abstract and Conclusion).
Regarding claims 5 and 6:
As previously discussed Safaee teaches the claimed composition.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adafruit Industries and Safaee as applied above, and further in view of Instructable Workshop (How to Tune Ember’s Print Setting for New Resin; already of record).
Regarding claim 2:
Adafruit Industries and Safaee are silent to the claimed parameters for a first layer.
In the same field of endeavor Instructable Workshop teaches when using an Ember printer there is only one first layer (page 6, first paragraph), and that one can control the separation slide velocity based on the needs of the resin used and one can control the approach slide velocity in order to reduce shear stress on the part (page 9, last two paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the parameters of the first layer as discussed by Instructable Workshop, since doing so optimizes such parameters for the resin used and the shear stress applied.
Regarding claim 3:
Adafruit Industries and Safaee are silent to the claimed parameters for a burn in layer.
In the same field of endeavor Instructable Workshop teaches when using an Ember printer there is at least one burn in layer (page 6, first paragraph), and that one can control the exposure time to prevent resin jamming, control the separation slide velocity based on the needs of the resin used, and one can control the approach slide velocity in order to reduce shear stress on the part (page 9, last three paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the parameters of the burn in layer as discussed by Instructable Workshop, since doing so optimizes such parameters for the resin used and the shear stress applied.
Regarding claim 4:
Adafruit Industries and Safaee are silent to the claimed parameters for a model layer.
In the same field of endeavor Instructable Workshop teaches when using an Ember printer there is at least one model layer (page 6, first paragraph), and that one can control wait time to allow for resin to flow out from under the model, control the exposure time to prevent resin jamming, control the separation slide velocity based on the needs of the resin used, and one can control the approach slide velocity in order to reduce shear stress on the part (page 9, last three paragraphs and page 10, fourth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the parameters of the model layer as discussed by Instructable Workshop, since doing so optimizes such parameters for the resin used and the shear stress applied.
Alternatively with regards to claims 2-4:
Claims 2-4 are claiming how to use an Ember 3D printer, as discussed throughout Instructable Workshop, printing parameters can be optimized for known reasons. Additionally, the Applicant has admitted that when using the Ember printer known parameters are simply optimized (page 6, lines 19-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize known print parameters for the Ember printer, since it has been held that optimization of known process parameters is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 II). In this instance Instructable Workshop has shown what the parameters are and what they accomplish, at the same time the Applicant has admitted to simply optimizing known parameters of the known Ember 3D printer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references are pertinent to use of Ember 3D printers with and without magnetic particles, and other printers with magnetic particles in the resin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights