DETAILED ACTION
In Application filed on 08/11/2025, claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-7 are considered in the current Office 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 Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims 1-7 are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the beam scanner to repeatedly scan the light beam across the first region of the mask, to turn off the light source…” should read as phrase “the beam scanner to repeatedly scan the light beam across the first region of the mask and to turn off the light source…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0221267 (“John et al” hereinafter John) and US2019/0344504 (“Barlow et al” hereinafter Barlow).
Regarding Claim 1, John teaches a vat polymerization printer ([0003] and Figure 3), comprising:
a tank (Figure 3, container 44’) configured for containing a photo-curable liquid resin (Figure 3, container 44’ filled with material 16 and the material is a plastics resin or a prepolymer that is solidifiable under radiation [0082]);
a light source configured to emit a light beam (Figure 3, radiation source 18);
a mask (Figure 1, an exposure mask 28 can be generated for each object layer of the object 12) having pixels configurable to be individually transparent or opaque to portions of the light beam ([0009], for each exposure mask, a single 2-bit bitmap is calculated which assigns either the bit-value “transparent” or the bit-value “non-transparent” to each pixel of the exposure mask),
a beam scanner configured to scan the light beam across the mask (Figure 3 and [0086], mask unit 24 comprises a digital micromirror device which is equivalent to a beam scanner and image the radiation 14 generated by the radiation source 18 according to the object layer to be formed); and
a controller (Figure 1, computer 38 comprises a control unit) comprising a memory and a processor (Figure 1, computer 38 has a memory and a processor), the memory storing instructions that (a computer 38 has a memory which will function to store instruction), when executed, cause the processor to control the vat polymerization printer to print a cross section of a three-dimensional object ([0086] and Figure 3, according to the layer information, a 2-bit bitmap 30 is calculated with the computer 36 which is then transferred to the mask unit 24 in order to control an LCD display for exposure in transmission or a digital micromirror device, in order thus to image the radiation 14 generated by the radiation source 18 according to the object layer to be formed, onto the image plane/construction plane 22) by:
controlling, during an exposure time duration, a first subset of the pixels of the mask to be transparent at locations corresponding to the cross section of the three-dimensional object, and a second subset of the pixels of the mask to be opaque at locations not corresponding to the cross section of the three-dimensional object ([0056], the exposure mask generating apparatus comprises a computer unit for calculating a single 2-bit bitmap for each exposure mask according to the object layer to be solidified, said 2-bit bitmap assigning to each pixel of the exposure mask either the bit-value “transparent” or the bit-value “non-transparent”), wherein, during the exposure time duration, and as a result of the control of the first and second subset of the pixels, (i) a first region of the mask includes at least some pixels that are controlled to be transparent, the first region of the mask being surrounded by a first border with pixels that are controlled to be opaque, (ii) a second region of the mask includes only pixels that are controlled to be opaque, and (iii) a third region of the mask includes at least some pixels that are controlled to be transparent (see annotated Figure 1 below and [0056], first region and third region include transparent pixels 32 whereas second region include nontransparent pixels 34. The area surrounding the first region is considered as a first border and are formed of nontransparent pixels 34); and
controlling, during the exposure time duration, the beam scanner to repeatedly scan the light beam across the first region of the mask ([0009], in order to form each object layer to be solidified of the object in a construction plane, there is generated at least one, preferably a single, digital exposure mask by means of which the radiation is selectively projected into the construction plane, wherein the mask comprises of transparent and nontransparent pixels. Thus, it is implied that the light beam radiated at least one region of the transparent mask into the photocuring region), to turn off the light source while the beam scanner repositions the light beam between the first region of the mask to the third region of the mask ([0057], the radiation source are individually controlled in order to control the energy input into the material according to the surface structure within a layer or an exposure cycle per layer), the third region of the mask being separated from the first region of the mask by the second region of the mask that includes only pixels that are controlled to be opaque (see annotated Figure 1 below and [0056], first region and third region include transparent pixels 32 whereas second region include nontransparent pixels 34. The area surrounding the first region is considered as a first border and are formed of nontransparent pixels 34 and the area surrounding the third region is considered as a second border and are formed of nontransparent pixels
PNG
media_image1.png
624
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
34),
wherein the first border is illuminated by the light beam (see MPEP 2114 (II). Regardless, John discloses [0085], the radiation source 18 which comprises an imaging optical system 20 for imaging an object layer image in an image plane/construction plane 22. Included in the imaging optical system 20 is a mask unit 24 which is controllable by means of an exposure mask generating apparatus 26. With the exposure mask generating apparatus 26, an exposure mask 28 can be generated for each object layer of the object 12. Thus, it is implied that the light beam illuminated upon the entire exposure mask 28 which includes both transparent region 32 and nontransparent region 34), and
wherein at most ten percent of the pixels that are controlled to be opaque are scanned by the light beam during the printing of the cross section of the three-dimensional object (see MPEP 2114 (II). This language recites the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed. There is no connection between the language and the previously recited controller or its instructions. Thus, as long as the apparatus of John is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. In this case, John discloses [0056], first region and third region include transparent pixels 32 whereas second region include nontransparent pixels 34; thus, the apparatus of John is capable of performing the recited function).
John fails to teach wherein a diameter of a cross section of the light beam is greater than a cross-sectional dimension of each of the respective pixels.
However, Barlow teaches wherein a diameter of a cross section of the light beam is greater than a cross-sectional dimension of each of the respective pixels (Figure 2B, the exposure pattern 280B covers multiple pixel arrays 282 which implied the diameter of a cross section of the light beam is greater than the cross-sectional dimension of each of the respective pixels).
John and Barlow are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of stereolithographic 3D printing object using masks containing both transparent and opaque pixels. 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 apparatus as taught by John to incorporated a diameter of a cross section of the light beam is greater than a cross-sectional dimension of each of the respective pixels as taught by Barlow to expedite the process of irradiation by having a light beam diameter greater than dimension of pixel to radiate multiple pixels simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified John teaches the vat polymerization printer of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the diameter of the cross section of the light beam is at least ten times the cross-sectional dimension of each of the respective pixels.
As the wavelength of the light beam and size of the light beam are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said diameter of the cross section of the light beam, with said shorter wavelength tend to scatter more readily than longer wavelengths (like red light), resulting in a larger effective cross-section for shorter wavelengths and increase size of the light beam increases the cross section of the light beam, the precise diameter of the cross-section would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter of the cross section of the light beam is at least ten times the cross-sectional dimension of each of the respective pixels cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the cross section of the light beam in the apparatus of the modified John to obtained the desired wavelength and size of the light beam. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified John teaches the vat polymerization printer of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the diameter of the cross section of the light beam is at least a hundred times the cross-sectional dimension of each of the respective pixels.
As the wavelength of the light beam and size of the light beam are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said diameter of the cross section of the light beam, with said shorter wavelength tend to scatter more readily than longer wavelengths (like red light), resulting in a larger effective cross-section for shorter wavelengths and increase size of the light beam increases the cross section of the light beam, the precise diameter of the cross-section would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter of the cross section of the light beam is at least a hundred times the cross-sectional dimension of each of the respective pixels cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter of the cross section of the light beam in the apparatus of the modified John to obtained the desired wavelength and size of the light beam. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified John teaches the vat polymerization printer of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a scan path for the light beam based on respective locations of the pixels that are controlled to be transparent during the exposure time duration (John, [0056], the exposure mask generating apparatus comprises a computer unit for calculating a single 2-bit bitmap for each exposure mask according to the object layer to be solidified, said 2-bit bitmap assigning to each pixel of the exposure mask either the bit-value “transparent” or the bit-value “non-transparent”. Thus, a scan path is produced based on the 2-bit bitmap of the exposure mask for each layer).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified John teaches the vat polymerization printer of claim 1, wherein the pixels comprise electrically modulated liquid crystal pixel elements (John, [0086], an LCD display for exposure in transmission or a digital micromirror device. A pixel within an LCD display is considered as an electrically modulated liquid crystal pixel elements).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified John teaches the vat polymerization printer of claim 1, further comprising: an extraction plate (John, Figure 3, carrier plate 42) disposed within the tank (Figure 3, carrier plate 42 is initially disposed within the container 44’ and moved upward as the 3D object is formed) to which the three-dimensional object, formed from cured portions of the photo-curing liquid resin, is affixed (Figure 3, forming object 12’, from material 16, is affixed to the carrier plate 42) ; and a height adjustor configured to control a vertical position of the extraction plate above the mask (Figure 3, drive unit 46 controls and moves the carrier plate 42 [0087]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0221267 (“John et al” hereinafter John) and US2019/0344504 (“Barlow et al” hereinafter Barlow) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2009/0184444 (“Honda et al” hereinafter Honda).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified John teaches the vat polymerization printer of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the light source comprises: a laser source configured to emit a laser beam; and a beam expander configured to generate the light beam from the laser beam, wherein the diameter of the cross section of the light beam is greater than a diameter of a cross section of the laser beam.
Honda teaches wherein the light source (Figure 1 and Figure 4, optical system 31) comprises: a laser source configured to emit a laser beam (Figure 4 and [0067], light source 91 emits an ultraviolet laser light beam which implied the presence of a laser source); and a beam expander (Figure 4, beam expander 94) configured to generate the light beam from the laser beam (Figure 4, light source 91 emits laser beam into the beam expander 94 which adjusts the beam diameter of the light beam [0069]), wherein the diameter of the cross section of the light beam is greater than a diameter of a cross section of the laser beam ([0069], the light beam size is adjusted to achieved desired beam diameter. Thus, the beam expander as taught by Honda is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
John and Honda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of stereolithographic 3D printing 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 apparatus as taught by the modified John such that it teaches all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Honda to emits an ultraviolet laser light beam having a relatively short wavelength between about the blue region and the ultraviolet region ([0067]) and to converts the beam diameter to a desired beam diameter ([0069]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,384,105. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-7 of the instant applications are not patentably distinct from claims 1-7 of the US12,384,105.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,005,634. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant applications are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the US 12,005,634.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights