DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 19 May 2025, amending claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, canceling claims 7, 16, and adding claims 17-20, are acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/621,510, filed on 21 December 2021.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Method .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
PNG
media_image1.png
278
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specifically, a method wherein first and second predetermined energy thresholds are relate to the Jacobs energy, which is defined by a formula EJ = EC * exp ( th / DP ).
Step 1: YES. The claim recites a process and therefore as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories (MPEP § 2106.03 II.).
Step 2A: PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites an energy threshold that is defined by the mathematical formula EJ = EC * exp ( th / DP ). This is recognized as an Abstract Idea (MPEP § 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A: PRONG TWO: NO. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is nothing further done with the mathematical concept, e.g. the process is not adjusted relative to the values obtained from the formula (MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B: NO. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing is done with the judicial exception, it merely is compared and/or determined (MPEP § 2106.05).
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al. (US 9937664 B2) in view of Young et al. (GPU-accelerated generation and rendering of multi-level voxel representations of solid models) and Valeri et al. (US 9,969,135 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Thiel discloses a process for using an additive manufacturing technology (title/abstract) which is capable of the claimed production of an optical element from a curable material, comprising:
a curing step for each partial wall 22 of the shell wall 16 for each partial area 20, and a global curing step for curing the volume 28 into volume section 18 (6:30+; FIG. 1-4), equated with the claimed multiplicity of curing steps for curing said curable material inside outlines, the geometry of which is determined according to the geometry of the homogenous structure 10, e.g. said optical element,
each partial wall 22 of the shell wall 16 is cured by the application of energy and creating volume 28 of unpolymerized lithographic material (6:30+; FIG. 1-4), which is equated with the claimed applying a curing surface energy onto the curable material that is higher in a first area that extends along said outline than in a second area situated within the first area,
the volume 28 of unpolymerized lithographic material must therefore receive a strictly lower amount of curing energy than a first predetermined energy threshold.
Thiel does not appear to expressly disclose a width of the first area is equal to or greater than 3 voxels.
However, Young discloses a method of 3D modeling including a multi-level voxelization data structure (title/abstract) in which the boundaries are contain 3 or more voxels (FIG. 3; pp. 13-17 § 3. Constructing multi-level voxelization).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Theil to include the fine boundary voxels of Young, in order to simplify the 3D model while maintaining boundary details (Young pp. 11-12 § 1. Introduction).
Further, Thiel does not appear to expressly disclose applying different amounts of curing energy to locations outside/inside of the outline.
However, Valeri discloses a process of stereolithographic additive manufacturing (title/abstract) which suggests that adjacent voxel are subject to differing amounts of curing or partial curing (FIG. 3A-C; Example 1, 23:39+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Thiel to include the different amounts of curing energy of Valeri, in order to better control the viscosities of different areas and form the structure with improved results (Valeri 1:10-3:55). Such that, a curing surface energy is directly applied onto a fourth area, or a fifth area situated inside the first area with an intensity, respectively, that is smaller, respectively equal to or higher, than an intensity of the curing surface energy applied onto said first area and that is different from an intensity of the curing surface energy applied onto said second area.
Regarding claim 2, Thiel discloses a process where no energy is applied to the volume 28. Therefore the curing surface energy-applied to the first area must be higher or equal to a second predetermined energy threshold, and said second predetermined energy threshold being equal to or greater than said first predetermined energy threshold (6:30+).
Regarding claim 3 and 17, Thiel discloses an identical process to that which is claimed (6:30+; FIG. 1-4). Therefore, absent further evidence to contrary, said first predetermined energy threshold must be strictly lower than a critical Jacobs energy defined for the curable material; said second predetermined energy threshold is preferably equal to or greater than said critical Jacobs energy; and wherein said second predetermined energy threshold is more preferably equal to or greater than a Jacobs energy determined for the first area of a given layer by using the Jacobs' equation.
Regarding claim 4, Thiel discloses repeating the steps layer by layer with each outline to manufacture said structure 10 (6:30+).
Regarding claim 5, Thiel discloses the final step enabling a complete curing of both the curable material in the first area and the curable material in the second area, wherein the total curing surface energy received by a major part of the second area just before said final step must be higher or equal to said first predetermined energy threshold (6:49+).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, and 18 at the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Thiel to include the different amounts of curing energy of Valeri, in order to better control the viscosities of different areas and form the structure with improved results (Valeri 1:10-3:55).
Regarding claim 11, Young suggests that the first set of voxels is determined as a function of the determined geometry of said outline and as a function of a type of post-processing process; a geometry of the voxels; and a reference of a machine used to manufacture the optical volume element (FIG. 3; pp. 13-17 § 3. Constructing multi-level voxelization).
Regarding claim 12, Young suggests that a position of the first set of voxels relative to the surface of curable material is defined as a function of a geometry of said outline and as a function of the geometry of the voxels (FIG. 3; pp. 13-17 § 3. Constructing multi-level voxelization).
Regarding claim 13, modified Theil suggests said curing step is repeated layer by layer to manufacture said optical element, each voxel having a thickness that is equal to a thickness of a considered layer, and wherein the position of the first set of voxels is defined so as to minimize the a mean square of a volume error between said outline and an external outline of the first set of voxels (Thiel 6:30+, FIG. 1-4; and, Young FIG. 3; pp. 13-17 § 3. Constructing multi-level voxelization).
Regarding claim 15, Valeri suggest ophthalmic lens (title/abstract).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al. (US 9937664 B2) in view of Young et al. (GPU-accelerated generation and rendering of multi-level voxel representations of solid models) and Valeri et al. (US 9,969,135 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Quere et al. (US 20160114542 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Thiel does not appear to expressly disclose post processing.
However, Quere discloses a stereolithographic additive manufacturing process (title/abstract) wherein subtractive type finishing is performed (title/abstract, ¶¶ 108+, 141+; FIG. 2-3).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Thiel to include the substrative finishing of Quere, in order to further refine the surface of the additive structure.
Regarding claim 15, Quere suggest ophthalmic lens (title/abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Specifically the closest prior art fails to discuss the outline having a thickness greater than 3 voxels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights