DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 1/2/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1, 11 and 19 are amended. Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 10, 12-13, 15, 18 and 20 are original.
5. Claims 3, 6, 8-9, 14 and 16-17 are previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
6. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 19 cannot be performed in
the human mind or with pencil and paper. The applicant points to Example 38 of the of Subject
Matter Eligibility Examples for support as to why the current claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C.
101. (Remarks: pages 12-14)
7. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that in the Example 38 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples,
the claims would not fall within the mental process grouping of an abstract idea because the
claim limitations cannot be practically be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper.
Also, the limitations of Example 38 are based on mathematical concepts, but do not contain
mathematical concepts within the claims. The limitations of the independent claims of the
current application are different from the limitations of Example 38, where they contain an
abstract idea. For example, in claim 11 of the current application the limitation that states
“generating, by executing an instruction using a processor and the computer file, a model
of the component, the model including a plurality of elements and at least one region of
interest” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the generating limitation that states “generating, by executing an instruction
using a processor, a first build characteristic contribution profile for the first element and
generate a second build characteristic contribution profile for the second element of the
plurality of elements” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation of claim 11 that states “comparing, by executing an instruction using a processor, the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile with respect to the at least one location within the component”, doesn’t distinguish itself where it can’t be conducted in the human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the adjusting limitation for example of claim 11 that states “adjusting, by
executing an instruction using a processor, a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile”, doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper.
Also, the processor that is mentioned in the limitations shown above, functions as a tool to perform the process, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit”.
Also, the additional elements of a processor and computer file. The processor and computer file are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, the limitation of claim 11 that states “loading a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the computer file is being loaded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of claim 11 that states “running, by executing an instruction using a processor, a first simulation using the model modified with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements” is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”.
Also, the limitation of claim 11 that states “running, by executing an instruction using the processor, a second simulation using the model without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element” is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”.
The applicant’s arguments for claims 1 and 19 are the arguments shown above for claim 11 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
8. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the Komzsik reference doesn’t teach the comparing limitation of claim 1, because the deformation images are not comparative simulations as set forth in the claim language. The applicant also argues that the Komzsik reference doesn’t teach generating and comparing build characteristic contribution profiles (Remarks: page 15)
9. Examiner Response:
The examiner first notes that the comparing limitation of claim 1 is comparing the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile, “compare the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile with respect to the at least one location within the component”. In paragraphs [0033] and [0042] of the Komzsik reference, it teaches those certain areas of a layer has a greater number of deformations. With knowing that certain areas of the layer have a greater number of deformations, demonstrates that there are build characteristic contribution profiles for a first element and a second element, since the plurality of elements are being considered the spaces in the layer, where there are different deformations.
Also, with knowing that certain areas of the layer have a greater number of deformations, demonstrates that the build characteristic contribution profiles are compared.
Further, the layer is simulated as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh, where simulation parameters are added to the layer mesh. This demonstrates that simulations with a first element and a second element are being compared.
10. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn’t teach the comparing and adjusting limitations of claim 1 or identifying a primary contributor and a secondary contributor. (Remarks: pages 15-16)
11. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that in section 9 of the current office action explains how the Komzsik reference teaches the comparing limitation of claim 1.
The Radjou et al. reference teaches the adjusting limitation of claim 1 “adjust a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile”, where it teaches if the cost function is negative, the deformation of the cluster was too small with regard to the target deformation, thus the material is updated to the next softer material of the subset of M materials. If the cost function is positive, the deformation of the cluster was too high with regard to the target deformation, and the material is updated to the next stiffer material of the subset of M materials. The examiner considers the updating of the material to be the adjustment of the build parameter, since the material is updated based on whether the deformation of the cluster is too small or too high, see paragraphs [0191] and [0192] of the Radjou et al. reference.
Also, Radjou et al. reference teaches the recent amendment that states “determining that the first element is a primary contributor to the build characteristic and the second element is a secondary contributor to the build characteristic according to a graduate scale”, where the examiner considers the elements of the first volumetric model to be the primary contributor, since the elements of the second volumetric model are generated from the elements of the first volumetric model, see paragraphs [0050] - [0051] and the Abstract of the Radjou et al. reference.
12. Examiner Response:
The applicant’s arguments for claims 11 and 19 are the arguments shown above for claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper.
Claims 1, 11 and 19
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 11 is directed towards a system and a method, which has the claim fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 19 is directed towards a build characteristic contribution evaluation module that includes a processor. The build characteristic contribution evaluation module functions as a system, which is an eligible statutory category of invention under 101.
Claim 11
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 11 recites “generating, by executing an instruction using a processor and the computer file, a model of the component, the model including a plurality of elements and at least one region of interest”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “the at least one region of interest determined by analyzing a build characteristic with respect to a threshold”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “the plurality of elements to provide volume and shape of the component in the model and including at least a first element and a second element, the first element and the second element being three-dimensional voxels and arranged to represent the component for building”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “generating, by executing an instruction using a processor, a first build characteristic contribution profile for the first element and generate a second build characteristic contribution profile for the second element of the plurality of elements”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “the first and second build characteristic contribution profiles representing an effect of the strain load applied to the first element and the second element, respectively, on the build characteristic of at least one location within the at least one region of interest”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “the effect determined by a difference between the first simulation and the second simulation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “comparing, by executing an instruction using a processor, the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile with respect to the at least one location within the component”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “adjusting, by executing an instruction using a processor, a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “determining that the first element is a primary contributor to the build characteristic and the second element is a secondary contributor to the build characteristic”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “the consolidation device including a laser device and a scanning device”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “the processor to control operation of the consolidation device by adjusting an operating setting of the consolidation device, the operating setting including at least one of a power output of the laser device, a position of the scanning device, or a scan speed of the scanning device based on the adjusting of the build parameter”. This limitation doesn’t have the processor actually controlling the operation of the consolidation device. The limitation states that the processor can control the operation to adjust an operating setting. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself where it can’t be conducted in the human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of loading a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amount to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of loading a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the computer file is being loaded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of running, by executing an instruction using a processor, a first simulation using the model modified with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of running, by executing an instruction using the processor, a second simulation using the model without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of the build parameter provided to a consolidation device to control operation of the consolidation device according to the build parameter to build the component amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the additional elements of a processor and computer file. The processor and computer file are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “loading a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component” and “the build parameter provided to a consolidation device to control operation of the consolidation device according to the build parameter to build the component” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of loading a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the computer file is being loaded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of running, by executing an instruction using a processor, a first simulation using the model modified with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of running, by executing an instruction using the processor, a second simulation using the model without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “a control system communicatively coupled to a consolidation device”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with a pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the consolidation device including a laser device and a scanning device”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “generate the model of a component using the computer file, the model including a plurality of elements and at least one region of interest”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one region of interest determined by analyzing a build characteristic with respect to a threshold”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of elements to provide volume and shape of the component in the model and including at least a first element and a second element, the first element and the second element being three-dimensional voxels and arranged to represent the component for building”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “generate a first build characteristic contribution profile for the first element and generate a second build characteristic contribution profile for the second element of the plurality of elements”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the first and second build characteristic contribution profiles representing an effect of the strain load applied to the first element and the second element, respectively, on the build characteristic of at least one location within the at least one region of interest”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the effect determined by a difference between the first simulation and the second simulation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “compare the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile with respect to the at least one location within the component”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “adjust a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining that the first element is a primary contributor to the build characteristic and the second element is a secondary contributor to the build characteristic”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the control system to control operation of the consolidation device according to the build parameter to build the component”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the control system to control operation of the consolidation device by adjusting an operating setting of the consolidation device, the operating setting including at least one of a power output of the laser device, a position of the scanning device, or a scan speed of the scanning device based on the adjusting of the build parameter”. This limitation doesn’t have the control system actually controlling the operation of the consolidation device. The limitation states that the control system can control the operation to adjust an operating setting. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself where it can’t be conducted in the human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the computer file is being loaded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of run a first simulation using the model modified with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of run a second simulation using the model without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of the build parameter provided to a consolidation device to build the component amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of wherein at least a portion of the adjustment is stored and retrieved during the build amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processor and computer file. The processor and computer file are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component”, “the build parameter provided to a consolidation device to build the component” and “wherein at least a portion of the adjustment is stored and retrieved during the build” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the computer file is being loaded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of run a first simulation using the model modified with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of run a second simulation using the model without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 19
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 19 recites “generate a model of the component using a computer file, the model including a plurality of elements and at least one region of interest”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “the at least one region of interest determined by analyzing a build characteristic with respect to a threshold”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “the plurality of elements to provide volume and shape of the component in the model and including at least a first element and a second element, the first element and the second element being three-dimensional and arranged to represent the component for building”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “generate a first build characteristic contribution profile for the first element and generate a second build characteristic contribution profile for the second element of the plurality of elements”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “the first and second build characteristic contribution profiles representing an effect of the strain load applied to the first element and the second element, respectively, on the build characteristic of at least one location within the at least one region of interest”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “the effect determined by a difference between the first simulation and the second simulation”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “compare the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile with respect to the at least one location within the component”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “adjust a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “determining that the first element is a primary contributor to the build characteristic and the second element is a secondary contributor to the build characteristic”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites “operation of the consolidation device to be controlled by adjusting an operating setting of the consolidation device, the operating setting including at least one of a power output of the laser device, a position of the scanning device, or a scan speed of the scanning device based on the adjusting of the build parameter”. This limitation isn’t actually controlling the operation of the consolidation device. The limitation states that there’s an operation of the consolidation device can control the adjustment of an operating setting. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself where it can’t be conducted in the human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the computer file is being loaded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of run a first simulation using the model modified with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of run a second simulation using the model without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of the build parameter provided to the consolidation device to build the component amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, claim 19 recites the additional elements of a processor and computer file. The processor and computer file are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component” and “the build parameter provided to the consolidation device to build the component” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t state how the computer file is being loaded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of run a first simulation using the model modified with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Also, the limitation of run a second simulation using the model without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element is being viewed as merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception.”. This limitation is being provided to identify regions that contribute to the build characteristic, see paragraph [0067] of the specification.
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the control system is configured to identify the at least one region of interest in the model, the at least one region of interest relating to at least one of a high stress location and a deformation location”. This limitation is stating that the control system has the ability to identify at least one region of interest in the model. The control system is not actually identifying at least one region of interest in the model. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “a user interface communicatively coupled to said control system and configured to receive a user input”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein said control system is configured to identify the at least one region of interest in the model based in part on the user input”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein said control system is further configured to generate a plurality of the build characteristic contribution profiles for the plurality of elements and combine the build characteristic contribution profiles to generate a build characteristic contribution map of the component.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein said control system is further configured to compare the build characteristic contribution profiles of the plurality of elements and sort the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the build characteristic contribution profiles”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein said control system is further configured to identify the first element of the plurality of elements as a first contributory element based on the first build characteristic contribution profile”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 6 recites “and wherein said control system is configured to adjust the build parameter of the component based on the first build characteristic contribution profile of the first contributory element”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the first contributory element is located outside of the at least one region of interest in the model”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein said control system is further configured to identify the second element of the plurality of elements as a second contributory element based on the second build characteristic contribution profile”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “and wherein said control system is configured to adjust the build parameter of the component based on the second build characteristic contribution profile of the second contributory element”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 9 recites “and apply a modeled inherent strain to the plurality of elements in each layer after determining the build characteristic contribution profile for the plurality of elements in the respective layer.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “a build platform configured to receive a particulate”, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Dependent claim 10 recites “and a consolidation device configured to consolidate the particulate to form a component”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the build parameter relates to an operating setting of said consolidation device”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 recites “consolidating, using an additive manufacturing system, a particulate to form the component in accordance with the build parameter”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein adjusting a build parameter of the component comprises adjusting at least one of a design parameter of the component and an operating setting of a consolidation device of the additive manufacturing system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13
Dependent claim 13 recites “identifying the at least one region of interest in the model based on at least in part on a user input, the at least one region of interest relating to at least one of a high stress location and a deformation location”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein generating a build characteristic contribution profile for the first element and generate a second build characteristic contribution profile for the second element of the plurality of elements comprises generating a plurality of the build characteristic contribution profiles for the plurality of elements”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 14 recites “the method further comprising combining the build characteristic contribution profiles to generate a build characteristic contribution map of the component”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 recites “comparing the build characteristic contribution profiles of the plurality of elements to each other”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 15 recites “and sorting the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the build characteristic contribution profiles”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 16
Dependent claim 16 recites “identifying the first element of the plurality of elements as a first contributory element based on the first build characteristic contribution profile”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 16 recites “wherein adjusting the build parameter of the component comprises adjusting at least one of a first design parameter of the component and a first operating setting of an additive manufacturing system based on the first build characteristic contribution profile of the first contributory element”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17
Dependent claim 17 recites “identifying the second element of the plurality of elements as a second contributory element based on the second build characteristic contribution profile”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 17 recites “and adjusting at least one of a second design parameter of the component and a second operating setting of the additive manufacturing system based on the second build characteristic contribution profile of the second contributory element”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 18
Dependent claim 18 recites “determining build characteristic contribution profiles for the plurality of elements in each layer”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 18 recites “and applying an inherent strain to the plurality of elements in each layer after determining the build characteristic contribution profile for the plurality of elements in the respective layer”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20
Dependent claim 20 recites “generate a plurality of the build characteristic contribution profiles for the plurality of elements”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “combine the build characteristic contribution profiles to generate a build characteristic contribution map of the component”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “compare the build characteristic contribution profiles of the plurality of elements to each other”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “and sort the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the build characteristic contribution profiles”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komzsik
(U.S. PGPub 2016/0246908) in view of Acharya et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0356778) in further view of Radjou et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0204810) in further view of Deaton, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 10,307,823) in further view of Lehmann (WO 2020/099038).
With respect to claim 1, Komzsik discloses “An additive manufacturing system” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0018] “I/O adapter 122 can be connected to a laser print system 150, such as an SLS or SLM system, that is capable of performing laser-based additive manufacturing tasks as described herein to produce a physical part”, The examiner considers the laser print system to be the additive manufacturing system, since the laser print system can perform laser-based additive manufacturing tasks)];
“memory” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0017] “Also connected to local system bus in the depicted example are a main memory 108 and a graphics adapter 110.”)];
“generate a model of the component, the model including a plurality of elements and at least one region of interest” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, Komzsik paragraph [0039] “The system receives a finite element (FE) model of a part to be manufactured (305), such as FE model 402 illustrated in FIG. 4.”, Fig. 2, The examiner notes that the phrase “plurality of elements are not defined within the claims. The examiner considers the plurality of elements to be the spaces in the layer as shown in Fig. 2 of the Komzsik reference. Also, the examiner considers the area of the layer where there’s a deformation, such as area 208, to be the region of interest, since this area of the layer is deformed)];
“the at least one region of interest determined by analyzing a build characteristic with respect to a threshold” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0032] “Spatially and temporally varying temperature will affect the deformation, and at the same time, the deformation (hence change in geometry of domain for thermal simulation) also affects the prediction of temperature gradient in thermal analysis.”, Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “FIG. 2 illustrates numerically predicted deformation of a layer (which can be color-coded by displacement) as compared to the original planned geometry (which can be differently colored). This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210.”, The examiner considers the area of the layer where there’s a deformation, such as area 208, to be the region of interest, since this area of the layer is deformed. Also, the examiner considers the threshold to be temperature value, since spatially and temporally varying temperature will affect the deformation)];
“the plurality of elements including at least a first element and a second element, the first element and the second element being three-dimensional and arranged to represent the component for building” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, Komzsik paragraph [0039] “The system receives a finite element (FE) model of a part to be manufactured (305), such as FE model 402 illustrated in FIG. 4.”, Fig. 2, The examiner considers the plurality of elements to be the spaces in the layer as shown in Fig. 2 of the Komzsik reference. Also, the examiner considers the area of the layer where there’s a deformation, such as area 208, to be the region of interest, since this area of the layer is deformed. Also, by the spaces being in a three-dimensional (3D) mesh, demonstrates that the elements are 3D)];
“run a first simulation using the model modified with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, Komzsik paragraph [0042] “The nonlinear transient heat transfer analysis can include applying structural load information for that FE layer mesh in conjunction with the heat transfer analysis so that deformations caused by both heat and structural loads are considered. Simulating manufacture of each FE layer mesh can include applying the structural load information to the FE layer mesh and to the entire FE model..”, The examiner considers the plurality of elements to be the spaces in the layer as shown in Fig. 2 of the Komzsik reference, where a first and second element would be a first and second space in the layer. By applying the structural load to the FE layer mesh, demonstrates that a modeled strain load is being applied)];
“generate a first build characteristic contribution profile for the first element and generate a second build characteristic contribution profile for the second element of the plurality of elements, the first and second build characteristic contribution profiles representing an effect of the strain load applied to the first element and the second element, respectively, on the build characteristic of at least one location within the at least one region of interest” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, Komzsik paragraph [0042] “The nonlinear transient heat transfer analysis can include applying structural load information for that FE layer mesh in conjunction with the heat transfer analysis so that deformations caused by both heat and structural loads are considered. Simulating manufacture of each FE layer mesh can include applying the structural load information to the FE layer mesh and to the entire FE model.”, By knowing that certain areas of the layer have a greater number of deformations, demonstrates that there are build characteristic contribution profiles for a first element and a second element, since the plurality of elements are being considered the spaces in the layer, where there are different deformations)];
“compare the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile with respect to the at least one location within the component” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, By knowing that certain areas of the layer has a greater amount of deformations, demonstrates that the build characteristic contribution profiles are compared)];
“the build parameter provided to the consolidation device to build the component” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0047] “The system can manufacture the 3D mesh model or the solid model (325). Of course, when the simulations are correct, printing the solid model using SLS or SLM techniques as described herein will produce a physical part that more closely resembles the 3D mesh model, since the 3D mesh model reflects the deformations detected from the simulations of producing each of the layers.”)];
While the Komzsik teaches having a laser print system that can perform laser-based additive manufacturing, Komzsik does not explicitly disclose “a control system communicatively coupled to a consolidation device and including a processor configured to control operation of the consolidation device; the consolidation device including a laser device and a scanning device; the control system to control operation of the consolidation device according to the build parameter to build the component”
Acharya et al. discloses “a control system communicatively coupled to a consolidation device and including a processor configured to control operation of the consolidation device” as [Acharya et al. (paragraph [0027] “FIG. 1 illustrates a typical additive manufacturing system 10, which has an additive manufacturing tool 12 and a controller 14.”, Acharya et al. paragraph [0028] “Controller 14 typically includes a reference database 28 and processor 30.”, Acharya et al. paragraph [0030] “FIG. 1 shows tool 12 as a direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) system. Persons skilled in the art, however, will recognize that the present system and method can alternatively utilize other additive manufacturing techniques and tools. For example, alternatives include but are not limited to laser additive manufacturing (LAM) tools (e.g. laser engineered net shaping (LENS), laser powder deposition (LPD), or selective laser sintering (SLS) apparatus) or electron beam machining tools (e.g. electron beam melting (EBM) or electron beam wire (EBW) apparatus).”, Fig. 1, The examiner considers the additive manufacturing tool to be the consolidation device, since the additive manufacturing tool is a direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) system and the consolidation device includes a laser device)];
“the consolidation device including a laser device and a scanning device” as [Acharya et al. (paragraph [0027] “FIG. 1 illustrates a typical additive manufacturing system 10, which has an additive manufacturing tool 12 and a controller 14. Additive manufacturing tool 12 has a material reservoir 16, material dispensers 18, a laser guide 20, a platform 22 for a workpiece 24, and a sensor 26 which communicates with controller 14.”, Fig. 1)];
“the control system to control operation of the consolidation device according to the build parameter to build the component” as [Acharya et al. (paragraph [0028] “Controller 14 typically includes a reference database 28 and processor 30. Reference database 28 contains relevant data and processor 30 contains programming to control additive manufacturing tool 12 to produce parts as is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.”, The examiner considers relevant data to be the build parameter, since the relevant data goes into the process to control the additive manufacturing tool to produce parts)];
Komzsik and Acharya et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the modeling of an additive manufacturing process.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Komzsik of having a laser print system that can perform laser-based additive manufacturing by incorporating a control system communicatively coupled to a consolidation device and including a processor configured to control operation of the consolidation device; the consolidation device including a laser device and a scanning device; the control system to control operation of the consolidation device according to the build parameter to build the component as taught by Acharya et al. for the purpose of modeling additive manufacturing of a part.
Komzsik in view of Acharya et al. teaches a control system communicatively coupled to a consolidation device and including a processor configured to control operation of the consolidation device; the consolidation device including a laser device and a scanning device; the control system to control operation of the consolidation device according to the build parameter to build the component.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Acharya et al. teaches that by modeling additive manufacturing of a part, the ability to reduce crack propensity and residual stress can be accomplished, where it improves energy-based analyses (Acharya et al. (paragraph [0004] – [0005]).
While the combination of Komzsik and Acharya et al. teaches running a first simulation with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements and adjusting a build parameter for a location within a component that relates to at least one element of the plurality of elements based on a build characteristic contribution profile and having the plurality of elements including at least a first element and a second element, where the first element and the second element being three-dimensional and arranged to represent the component for building, Komzsik and Acharya et al. do not explicitly disclose “first element and the second element being three-dimensional voxels; the plurality of elements to provide volume and shape of the component in the model; run a second simulation without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element; adjust a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile to the build characteristic and the second build characteristic contribution profile to the build characteristic; determining that the first element is a primary contributor and the second element is a secondary contributor”
Radjou et al. discloses “first element and the second element being three-dimensional voxels” as [Radjou et al. (paragraph [0111] “In the case of a three-dimensional scalar field, the volumetric measurement usually comprises a set of three-dimensional pixels, commonly referred as “voxel” (short for “volumetric pixel”) juxtaposed with one another along the three dimensions. A scalar or vector field representative of the local physical parameter in a voxel may be associated to every voxel.”, Radjou et al. paragraph [0113] “Such a topological segmentation can be automatically performed by applying an image processing algorithm, adapted to identify clusters of three-dimensional pixels in the three dimensional model of an imaged region according to:”, Radjou et al. paragraph [0114] “the local physical parameter associated to each voxel (minimal density, density with regard to the neighboring voxels))];
“the plurality of elements to provide volume and shape of the component in the model” as [Radjou et al. (paragraph [0030] “providing a first volumetric model of an object in at least a deformed configuration, generating a second volumetric model from said first volumetric model, said second volumetric model being divided in a plurality of elementary volumetric elements, assigning to each elementary volumetric element of the second volumetric model a material selected in a database of M object materials by performing at least the following steps:”)];
“run a second simulation using the model without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element” as [Radjou et al. (paragraph [0161] “The strain error may in particular be written as εi.M−ε.iT where εi.M is a strain of an elementary volumetric element i of the cluster between an initial configuration of the second volumetric model without the set of predefined loads and constraints”)];
“adjust a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile and the second build characteristic contribution profile” as [Radjou et al. (paragraph [0191] “If the cost function is negative, the deformation of the cluster was too small with regard to the target deformation, the material is thus updated to the next softer material of the subset of M materials”, paragraph [0192] “If the cost function is positive, the deformation of the cluster was too high with regard to the target deformation, the material is thus updated to the next stiffer material of the subset of M materials”)];
“determining that the first element is a primary contributor to the build characteristic and the second element is a secondary contributor to the build characteristic” as [Radjou et al. (Abstract “generating a second volumetric model from the first volumetric model and assigning materials to the second volumetric model”, paragraph [0050] “each elementary volumetric element of the cluster of the second volumetric model is respectively associated with at least one elementary volumetric element of the first volumetric model”, Radjou et al. (paragraph [0051] “step c) comprises an operation c1) of comparing a location of at least one elementary volumetric element in the deformed configuration of the cluster with a location of at least one elementary volumetric element in the deformed configuration of the first volumetric model”, The examiner considers the elements of the first volumetric model to be the primary contributor, since the elements of the second volumetric model are generated from the elements of the first volumetric model)];
Komzsik, Acharya et al. and Radjou et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the modeling of an additive manufacturing process.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Komzsik and Acharya et al. of running a first simulation with a modeled strain load applied to at least the first and the second element of the plurality of elements and adjusting a build parameter for a location within a component that relates to at least one element of the plurality of elements based on a build characteristic contribution profile and having the plurality of elements including at least a first element and a second element, where the first element and the second element being three-dimensional and arranged to represent the component for building by incorporating the plurality of elements to provide volume and shape of the component in the model; run a second simulation without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element; adjust a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile to the build characteristic and the second build characteristic contribution profile to the build characteristic; determining that the first element is a primary contributor and the second element is a secondary contributor as taught by Radjou et al. for the purpose of generating 3D models of multi-material objects.
Komzsik in view of Acharya et al. in further view of Radjou et al. teaches the plurality of elements to provide volume and shape of the component in the model; run a second simulation without the modeled strain load applied to at least the first element and the second element; adjust a build parameter for the at least one location within the component relating to the first element of the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the first build characteristic contribution profile to the build characteristic and the second build characteristic contribution profile to the build characteristic; determining that the first element is a primary contributor and the second element is a secondary contributor.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Radjou et al. teaches that by generating 3D models for fabricating multi-material objects using additive manufacturing, the ability to have an accurate solution for a large range of manufacturing materials can be accomplished, where less power is required and the speed and reliability is improved (Radjou et al. (paragraph [0028] – [0035])).
While the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al. and Radjou et al. teaches having a control system to control the operation of a consolidation device, Komzsik, Acharya et al. and Radjou et al. do not explicitly disclose “load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component”
Deaton, Jr. et al. discloses “load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component” as [Col. 6 lines 27-37, “Once the process is completed, an electronic computer build file (or files) or scan path data set is generated, including all of the layers. The build file or scan path data set is loaded into controller 34 of additive manufacturing system 10 to control the system during fabrication of each layer. After the build file or scan path data set is loaded into controller 34, additive manufacturing system 10 is operated to generate component 24 by implementing the layer-by-layer manufacturing process, such as a selective laser melting method.”)];
Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al. and Deaton, Jr. et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the modeling of an additive manufacturing process.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Komzsik, Acharya et al. and Radjou et al. of having a control system to control the operation of a consolidation device by incorporating load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component as taught by Deaton, Jr. et al. for the purpose of repairing a structure in an additive manufacturing system.
Komzsik in view of Acharya et al. in further view of Radjou et al. in further view of Deaton, Jr. et al. teaches load a computer file, the computer file including a build file enabling the control system to control operation of the consolidation device during each layer of building a component.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Deaton, Jr. et al. teaches that by repairing a structure in an additive manufacturing system, the ability to reduce the cost of repairing a structure can be accomplished (Deaton, Jr. et al. Col. 1 lines 10-46, “Additive manufacturing systems are essential, etc.).
While the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al. and Deaton, Jr. et al. teaches a control system to control the operation of a consolidation device, Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al. and Deaton, Jr. et al. do not explicitly disclose “the control system to control operation of the consolidation device by adjusting an operating setting of the consolidation device, the operating setting including at least one of a power output of the laser device, a position of the scanning device, or a scan speed of the scanning device based on the adjusting of the build parameter, wherein at least a portion of the adjustment is stored and retrieved during the build”
Lehmann discloses “the control system to control operation of the consolidation device by adjusting an operating setting of the consolidation device, the operating setting including at least one of a power output of the laser device, a position of the scanning device, or a scan speed of the scanning device based on the adjusting of the build parameter” as [Lehmann (Pg. 8 lines 13-17, “The control unit may be configured for comparing a measured position of each of the reference marks to position of the work field that was aimed at by the corresponding laser device when emitting the work light that generated the respective reference marks. This comparison of actual measurements versus intended positions allows for a readjustment of the calibration settings of the at least one laser device.”, Lehmann Pg. 20 lines 18-20 “Adjusting the position of the laser field of a laser device may comprise adjusting the position of the laser field with respect to the work field within the work plane and may allow adapting the settings of the laser device to compensate an offset drift.”)];
“wherein at least a portion of the adjustment is stored and retrieved during the build” as [Lehmann (Pg. 9 lines 22-25 “Such initial calibration may result in the correction of an “ideal” image or map of the work field stored in the control unit and/ or used by the control unit in a system specific way taking into account the reference marks detected by the optical detector during the initial calibration.”, Lehmann Pg. 11 lines 8-12 “Such subsequent calibrations or recalibrations may result in the correction of an image or map of the work field stored in the control unit and/or used by the control unit resulting from the first correction in the initial calibration in a system specific way taking into account the reference marks detected by the optical detector during the subsequent calibration.”)];
Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the process of an additive manufacturing.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al. and Deaton, Jr. et al. of having a control system to control the operation of a consolidation device by incorporating the control system to control operation of the consolidation device by adjusting an operating setting of the consolidation device, the operating setting including at least one of a power output of the laser device, a position of the scanning device, or a scan speed of the scanning device based on the adjusting of the build parameter, wherein at least a portion of the adjustment is stored and retrieved during the build as taught by Lehmann for the purpose of analyzing a laser processing system.
Komzsik in view of Acharya et al. in further view of Radjou et al. in further view of Deaton, Jr. et al. in further view of Lehmann teaches the control system to control operation of the consolidation device by adjusting an operating setting of the consolidation device, the operating setting including at least one of a power output of the laser device, a position of the scanning device, or a scan speed of the scanning device based on the adjusting of the build parameter, wherein at least a portion of the adjustment is stored and retrieved during the build.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Lehmann teaches that by analyzing a laser processing system, the ability to improve calibration, where there’s a reduction in a degree of external intervention and an increased degree of automatization, rapidity, and accuracy can be accomplished in order to reduce the time of the additive manufacturing process (Lehmann (Col. 3 lines 3-19, “However, such traditional calibration processes usually involve several time-consuming iterations and, etc.”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 1 above, and Komzsik further discloses “wherein the control system is configured to identify the at least one region of interest in the model, the at least one region of interest relating to at least one of a high stress location and a deformation location” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, Fig. 2, The examiner considers the edge area 208 in Fig. 2 of the Komzsik reference to be the region of interest, since there’s a greater amount of deformation in this area than other parts of the layer)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 2 above, and Komzsik further discloses “a user interface communicatively coupled to said control system and configured to receive a user input, wherein said control system is configured to identify the at least one region of interest in the model based in part on the user input” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0021] “A data processing system in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure includes an operating system employing a graphical user interface”, paragraph [0033] “In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 1 above, and Acharya et al. further discloses “wherein said control system is further configured to generate a plurality of the build characteristic contribution profiles for the plurality of elements and combine the build characteristic contribution profiles to generate a build characteristic contribution map of the component” as [Acharya et al. (paragraph [0031] “The present disclosure is directed to producing a process map which includes models of a process at different process parameters to produce a “virtual machine” which can be used, when loaded into or accessed by reference database 28”, paragraph [0034] “The results of this comparison can then be used to construct a process map for controlling a system such as system 10 of FIG. 1. As discussed above, the process map includes models of process output at different process parameters.”, The examiner considers the models of a process at different process parameters to be the plurality of contribution profiles of the plurality of elements, since the models of a process at different process parameters are combined to generate the process map of the part (component))];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 4 above, and Komzsik further discloses “wherein said control system is further configured to compare the build characteristic contribution profiles of the plurality of elements and sort the plurality of elements based on the comparison of the build characteristic contribution profiles” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, By knowing that certain areas of the layer has a greater amount of deformations, demonstrates that the build characteristic contribution profiles are compared. Also, by knowing that certain areas of the layer have a greater number of deformations, demonstrates that the plurality of elements are sorted, since the there are areas of the layer with relatively little deformation and areas where there’s a significant amount of deformation)];
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 4 above, and Komzsik further discloses “wherein said control system is further configured to identify at least one the first element of the plurality of elements as a first contributory element based on the first build characteristic contribution profile” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, The examiner considers the space within the edge areas 208 with deformations to be the first contributory element, since first contributory elements are within the region of interest. The examiner considers edge areas 208 as being the region of interest of the layer, since there’s a greater amount of deformations in this area of the layer)];
“and wherein said control system is configured to adjust the build parameter of the component based on the first build characteristic contribution profile of the first contributory element” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0044] “In this way, the modifications to the FE layer mesh can be made specifically according to thermal-structural coupled manufacturing simulations; that is, while simulating manufacture of a given FE layer mesh, the system simulates the thermal or structural distortions caused by the manufacturing process itself (as illustrated in FIG. 2), and applies these distortions as modifications to the FE model at that FE layer mesh)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 6 above, and Komzsik further discloses “wherein the first contributory element is located outside of the at least one region of interest in the model” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “FIG. 2 illustrates numerically predicted deformation of a layer (which can be color-coded by displacement) as compared to the original planned geometry (which can be differently colored). This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210.”, Fig. 2, The examiner considers the first contributory element to be located within the region of interest of the model, see paragraph [0056] of the specification. The examiner considers the space in the edge are 208 as shown in Fig. 2 of the Komzsik reference to be the first contributory element located within a region of interest)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 6 above, and Komzsik further discloses “wherein said control system is further configured to identify the second element of the plurality of elements as a second contributory element based on the second build characteristic contribution profile” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “FIG. 2 illustrates numerically predicted deformation of a layer (which can be color-coded by displacement) as compared to the original planned geometry (which can be differently colored). This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, The examiner considers the space within area 206 to be the second contributory element, since the second contributory element is located outside the region of interest. The examiner considers the region of interest to be the edge area 208 of the layer)];
Radjou et al. discloses “and wherein said control system is configured to adjust the build parameter of the component based on the second build characteristic contribution profile of the second contributory element.” as [Radjou et al. (paragraph [0191] “If the cost function is negative, the deformation of the cluster was too small with regard to the target deformation, the material is thus updated to the next softer material of the subset of M materials”, paragraph [0192] “If the cost function is positive, the deformation of the cluster was too high with regard to the target deformation, the material is thus updated to the next stiffer material of the subset of M materials”)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 1 above, and Komzsik further discloses “wherein the plurality of elements are arranged in a plurality of layers, and wherein said control system is configured to determine build characteristic contribution profiles for the plurality of elements in each layer and apply a modeled inherent strain to the plurality of elements in each layer after determining the build characteristic contribution profile for the plurality of elements in the respective layer” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0033] “FIG. 2 illustrates numerically predicted deformation of a layer (which can be color-coded by displacement) as compared to the original planned geometry (which can be differently colored). This figure shows an example of a simulated layer 202 as a thin three-dimensional (3D) mesh with deformation as compared to an undeformed layer 204. In this example, there is relatively little deformation in the center area 206, but a greater amount of deformation at edge areas such as at edge 208, and a significant deformation at corner 210”, Komzsik paragraph [0042] “The nonlinear transient heat transfer analysis can include applying structural load information for that FE layer mesh in conjunction with the heat transfer analysis so that deformations caused by both heat and structural loads are considered.”, Komzsik paragraph [0044] “For each FE layer mesh, as it is simulated, the system can apply thermal and structural loads to accurately simulate the distortions caused. Because the entire FE model is already present, the structural loads such as gravity can be applied throughout the entire FE model to ensure that the specific FE layer mesh is properly simulated.”, Fig. 2, The examiner notes that the phrase “inherent strain” is not defined within the claims. The examiner considers the phrase “inherent strain” to be a strain that causes deformations to the plurality of elements in each layer)];
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al., Radjou et al., Deaton, Jr. et al. and Lehmann discloses the system of claim 1 above, and Acharya further discloses “a build platform configured to receive a particulate and a consolidation device configured to consolidate the particulate to form a component, wherein the build parameter relates to an operating setting of said consolidation device” as [Acharya et al. (paragraph [0027] “FIG. 1 illustrates a typical additive manufacturing system 10, which has an additive manufacturing tool 12 and a controller 14. Additive manufacturing tool 12 has a material reservoir 16, material dispensers 18, a laser guide 20, a platform 22 for a workpiece 24, and a sensor 26 which communicates with controller 14., Fig. 1)];
With respect to claim 11, Komzsik discloses “A method of fabricating a component” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0039] “The system receives a finite element (FE) model of a part to be manufactured (305), such as FE model 402 illustrated in FIG. 4.”, paragraph [0047] “The system can manufacture the 3D mesh model or the solid model (325). Of course, when the simulations are correct, printing the solid model using SLS or SLM techniques as described herein will produce a physical part that more closely resembles the 3D mesh model, since the 3D mesh model reflects the deformations detected from the simulations of producing each of the layers.”)];
“processor” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0017] “The data processing system depicted includes a processor 102 connected to a level two cache/bridge 104, which is connected in turn to a local system bus 106”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Komzsik, Acharya et al. and Radjou et al. discloses the method of claim 11 above, and Acharya et al. further discloses “consolidating, using an additive manufacturing system, a particulate to form the component in accordance with the build parameter, wherein adjusting a build parameter of the component comprises adjusting at least one of a design parameter of the component and an operating setting of a consolidation device of the additive manufacturing system” as [Acharya et al. (paragraph [0027] “FIG. 1 illustrates a typical additive manufacturing system 10, which has an additive manufacturing tool 12 and a controller 14. Additive manufacturing tool 12 has a material reservoir 16, material dispensers 18, a laser guide 20, a platform 22 for a workpiece 24, and a sensor 26 which communicates with controller 14”, Acharya et al. paragraph [0028] “executing a nonlinear transient heat transfer analysis of the partial structure including gravity loads, deforming the finite element node point locations to adhere the results of the analysis, and repeating this process until the complete structure is analyzed”, Acharya et al. paragraph [0042] “The nonlinear transient heat transfer analysis can include applying structural load information for that FE layer mesh in conjunction with the heat transfer analysis so that deformations caused by both heat and structural loads are considered. Simulating manufacture of each FE layer mesh can include applying the structural load information to the FE layer mesh and to the entire FE model.”)];
With respect to claims 13-18, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 2, 4-6 and 8-9 and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 19, Komzsik discloses “A build characteristic contribution evaluation module for an additive manufacturing system” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0017] “FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of a data processing system in which an embodiment can be implemented, for example as a PDM system particularly configured by software or otherwise to perform the processes as described herein, and in particular as each one of a plurality of interconnected and communicating systems as described herein. The data processing system depicted includes a processor 102 connected to a level two cache/bridge 104”, paragraph [0025] “After each finite element layer mesh is added to the domain, a coupled thermo-structural analysis can be performed to calculate the temperature and mechanical deformation for the heating and cooling during SLS or SLM. The displacements are applied to the finite element mesh and this process is repeated until all the layers are added and fused together. The final geometry can then be compared against originally planned 3D CAD model to identify locations that are deformed.”)];
“the build characteristic contribution evaluation module comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device” as [Komzsik (paragraph [0017] “The data processing system depicted includes a processor 102 connected to a level two cache/bridge 104, which is connected in turn to a local system bus 106”, Fig. 1)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claims 1 and 11 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 20, the limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claims 4 and 5, and are rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights