DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 10-12, 15-16, 21 and 24 have been amended. Claim 25 remains withdrawn from consideration. Claims 14, 17-20 and 22 have been canceled. Claims 26-30 are newly submitted claims. Accordingly, claims 1-13, 15-16, 21, 23-24, and 26-30 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 10-11 have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Office action mailed 03/04/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 2 has overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office action mailed 03/04/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(i) Arguments Regarding Amended Claim 1: Applicant asserts that neither LEIBIG nor MATSUIK disclose a method for depositing one or more subsequent layers of thermosetting resin according to adjusted deposition parameters to form a 3D object in which the composition of the thermosetting resin is adjusted according to one or more methods (1) to (5) in response to a perturbation profile including deposited height information (see page 2).
Furthermore, Applicant submits that citations to LEIBIG relied upon as evidence of obviousness relate to monitoring of parameters other than the height of the deposited layers or to adjustments to deposition parameters other than the composition of thermosetting resin (see page 2); and therefore LEIBIG fails to disclose generation of a perturbation profile comprising information directed to the height of the deposited layers and adjusting one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile which includes adjustments of the composition of the thermosetting resin being deposited (see page 3).
Moreover, Applicant takes the position that MATSUIK fails to cure the deficiencies in the disclosure of LEIBIG; specifically, Applicant asserts there is no disclosure or teaching in MATSUIK that would have suggested adjusting the composition of a thermoset material in response to perturbation information including the height of the deposited material – rather, MATSUIK is focused on 3D printing using inkjet printing as shown by paragraph [0064]. Applicant states that since MATSUIK does not disclose or suggest adjusting the composition of a thermoset resin as a means for compensating for height deviations, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had no reason to modify the teachings in LEIBIG to arrive at the invention according to claim 1 as amended (see page 4).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1.
LEIBIG was not relied upon for the claimed generation of a perturbation profile comprising information directed to the height of the deposited layers and adjusting one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile which includes adjustments of the composition of the thermosetting resin being deposited.
Consistent with paragraph [0037] of the specification as filed which states “the term ‘perturbation profile’ refers to the summation of or an analysis of the perturbations scanned, sensed, or detected on a layer” – LEIBIG discloses the systems and methods utilizing various extruded thermoset printing apparatuses to monitor/fix various issues, control various parameters, or control environmental conditions when generating or creating 3D object (LEIBIG at [0006]); in particular, LEIBIG discloses using sensors to measure the mass of extruded material (i.e., “sensing” at least a portion of the one or more deposited layers of the thermosetting resin), reactive component flowrates the color of combined reactive components, and using the sensor measurements as feedback to carry out the method to verify if sensor data matches theoretical amounts in order for corrections or adjustments to be made (i.e., to detect one or more perturbations present therein, which differ from the predefined design to form a perturbation profile and adjusting the one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile) (LEIBIG at [0006], [0011], [0013], [0066], [0067], [0124], [0130], [0131], [0133]). Therefore, LEIBIG discloses the claimed c) “sensing” at least a portion of the one or more of the deposited layers of the thermosetting resin to detect one or more perturbations present therein, which differ from the predefined design to form a perturbation profile and d) adjusting the one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile.
Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that there is no disclosure or teaching in MATSUIK that would have suggested adjusting the composition of a thermoset material in response to perturbation information including the height of the deposited material, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
MATSUIK teaches printing system 110 including a scanner 112 which is used to scan the object 140 being fabricated, where the scan date obtained from the scanner is used to adapt the control of the printhead and thereby adapt the fabrication of the object to accommodate deviation of actual fabrication of the object from an ideal fabrication plan – for example, the approach may accommodate deviation in the shape, material composition, and/or color of the object as it is being fabricated as compared to a model of the object (MATSUIK at [0035]). MATSUIK further teaches after the printer/scanner 100 has deposited layers of material for all the slices in the slice plan, it enters a scanning mode in which the scanner 112 senses the printed surface in a manner that captures information related to the relative distance between the scanner and the surface; the information captured by the scanner is a depth map of the partially-fabricated object representing the fabricated height of the object (i.e., generation of a perturbation profile comprising information directed to the height of the deposited layers and adjusting one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile which includes adjustments of the composition of the material being deposited) (MATSUIK at [0035], [0036], [0037], [0039], [0062], [0063], FIG. 10).
In regards to Applicant’s argument that MATSUIK is focused on 3D printing using inkjet printing as shown by paragraph [0064] and therefore MATSUIK does not disclose or suggest adjusting the composition of a thermoset resin as a means for compensating for height deviations is not persuasive. MATSUIK explicitly states in paragraph [0059] that the methods and systems are not limited to a particular additive manufacturing process; for example, a variety of types of inkjet-based printing, photopolymer phase change inkjets, thermal phase change inkjets, inkjet metal printing, fused filament fabrication, and additive manufacturing using dispensing systems may be used (i.e., reactive thermoset extrusion).
Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1 are against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner maintains that a person having ordinary skill in the art viewing LEIBIG and MATSUIK together would arrive at amended claim 1. For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
(ii) Arguments Regarding New Claim 26: Applicant argues that while LEIBIG discloses controlling the distance between the tip and the bead top in paragraph [0062] and MATSUIK discloses planning corrective surfaces based on a depth map derived from scanning to inter alia prevent damage to the printed part due to collisions between the printhead and the printed object; neither LEIBIG nor MATSUIK disclose or suggest a method for preventing the accumulation of a thermosetting resin on the tip of an extrusion nozzle, which is not the same as preventing damage to the printed 3D object (see pages 4-5).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding new claim 26. LEIBIG does in fact disclose and suggest a method for preventing the accumulation of a thermosetting resin on the tip of an extrusion nozzle in paragraphs [0160]-[0161], previously relied upon in the rejection of claim 8 in the 03/04/2025 Office Action. Paragraph [0062] of LEIBIG discloses that controlling a distance between the extrusion nozzle and the 3D printed object can provide an unexpectedly superior 3D printed object; and paragraph [0063] which discloses the automatic detection and obstruction removal of reactive components forming an accumulation on the interior and/or exterior of the tip of the nozzle by the controller.
Hence, contrary to Applicant’s argument, LEIBIG in view of MATSUIK, does in fact disclose a method for preventing the accumulation of a thermosetting resin on the tip of an extrusion nozzle; and for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
(iii) Arguments Regarding New Claim 27: Applicant asserts that neither LEIBIG nor MATSUIK disclose a method in which bead spacing is adjusted in response to a perturbation profile comprising height information; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had any reason to consider adjusting bead spacing based on a perturbation profile comprising height information (see page 5).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument regarding new claim 27. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Paragraph [0038] of MATSUIK discloses that once the material for the layers of the slice set has been deposited, the system scans the newly formed surface of the object (step 430), and based on the scan data obtained by the scanning determines a depth map that represents the achieved surface shape (step 435); in an ideal scenario, the depth map may show a perfectly horizontal (constant z) surface, but more typically there is variation in the depth over the surface of the partially fabricated object; the system then plans a next slice set based on the object model and the depth map using a procedure described below that adapts the slices to match the determined actual depth map and to deposit material only within the volume of the object as specified in the object model (i.e., adjusting bead spacing based on a perturbation profile comprising height information) (step 440).
Consequently, given the discussion above, LEIBIG in view of MATSUIK, disclose a method in which bead spacing is adjusted in response to a perturbation profile comprising height information; and for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
(iv) Arguments Regarding New Claim 29: Applicant submits that LEIBIG fails to provide a disclosure regarding calculation of an extrusion percent based on perturbation data acquired from a scanner; and while paragraph [0062] of MATSUIK discloses correcting height deviations by increasing droplet size when carrying out inkjet deposition or by depositing additional layers in underfilled areas, MATSUIK does not disclose a generalized approach to infilling to address underfilling a layer, or a subset of a layer, relative to the total amount of thermoset material to be deposited to form the predefined 3D object (see page 5).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding new claim 29. In response to applicant's argument that LEIBIG fails to provide a disclosure regarding calculation of an extrusion percent based on perturbation data acquired from a scanner and MATSUIK does not disclose a generalized approach to infilling to address underfilling a layer, or a subset of a layer, relative to the total amount of thermoset material to be deposited to form the predefined 3D object, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
LEIBIG discloses the cumulative volume of material that is intended to be extruded is noted by the G-Code interpreter running on the 3D printer throughout the production of an object; by adding force sensors to each corner of the build surface the mass of extruded material can be measured throughout the production of the 3D object; and by monitoring the difference between the intended mass of material to be extruded and the actual mass as measured by the force sensors mounted on the build surface it can be determined if the actual mass of material deposited is significantly less than that intended (LEIBIG at [0006], [0129]-[0131]; [0150]; [0153]; [0156], [0159], FIG. 8).
MATSUIK discloses that once the material for the layers of the slice set has been deposited, the system scans the newly formed surface of the object (step 430), and based on the scan data obtained by the scanning determines a depth map that represents the achieved surface shape (step 435); in an ideal scenario, the depth map may show a perfectly horizontal (constant z) surface, but more typically there is variation in the depth over the surface of the partially fabricated object; the system then plans a next slice set based on the object model and the depth map using a procedure described below that adapts the slices to match the determined actual depth map and to deposit material only within the volume of the object as specified in the object model (step 440) (MATSUIK at [0012]-[0014], [0038]).
Consequently, given the discussion above, LEIBIG in view of MATSUIK, disclose a calculation of an extrusion of an extrusion percent based on perturbation data acquired from a scanner; and for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the deposition pat” in the last line of the claim should be corrected such that the recitation reads “the deposition path” to ensure claims are grammatically correct. Additionally, this claim includes a bulleted list using “… b) … c) … d) … e) …”; however, this list fails to include “a)” and should be included. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim includes a bulleted list using “… b) … c) … d) … e) …”; however, this list fails to include “a)” and should be included. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim includes a bulleted list using “… b) … c) … d) … e) …”; however, this list fails to include “a)” and should be included. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13, 15-16, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEIBIG et al. (US 2019/0168446; made of record in the IDS filed on 07/15/2022) in view of MATSUIK et al. (US 2018/0169953; of record).
As to claim 1: LEIBIG discloses the claimed three-dimensional (3D) object production process (i.e., three-dimensional (3D) object production methods for generating or creating 3D objects) (LEIBIG at [0001], [0004], [0006], [0011], [0012], [0013], [0039], [0065], claim 50) comprising:
providing a thermoset printing apparatus (i.e., the 3D object production method can be
operably coupled to an extruded thermoset printing apparatus) (LEIBIG at [0039], [0065], [0075], claim 50) comprising:
a mixing chamber into which a plurality of components comprising a first reactive
component and a second reactive component are directed and contacted to produce an extrudable thermosetting resin (i.e., the extruded thermoset printing apparatus may include at least a first reactant for holding/containing a first reactant, and one or more additional reactant chambers, or nth reactant chamber, for holding/containing additional, or nth, reactants; and the reacting chambers being operably coupled to mixing chambers such that the reactants are mixed to produce and provide a thermoset product to an extrusion nozzle) (LEIBIG at [0075], [0076], claim 50);
an extrusion nozzle in fluid communication with the mixing chamber through which the
thermosetting resin is extruded and deposited onto a substrate or at least a portion of another deposited layer of the thermosetting resin (i.e., the mixing chamber may be operably coupled to the extrusion nozzle, which can deliver the thermoset product to a production chamber where the 3D object is being formed; wherein LEIBIG defines “layer” to be a strand of thermoset product that has been extruded from the extrusion nozzle and deposited on a substrate) (LEIBIG at [0035], [0053], [0075], [0076], claim 50);
at least one actuator coupled to the extrusion nozzle configured to move the extrusion
nozzle (i.e., the 3D object production method comprises at least one actuator operably coupled to the extrusion nozzle to move the extrusion nozzle) (LEIBIG at [0039], [0040], [0041], [0042], claim 50);
a controller coupled to the thermoset printing apparatus (i.e., the 3D object production
method includes a controller comprising one or more processors, computing apparatus 12, operably coupled to the extruded thermoset printing apparatus) configured to produce the thermosetting resin and direct the deposition of the thermosetting resin from the extrusion nozzle along a deposition path according to one or more deposition parameters to form the 3D object according to a predefined design (i.e., computing apparatus 12 includes data storage 14 for access to processing programs or routines 16 and one or more other types of data 18, e.g., 3D object designs, computer-aided design (CAD) files, sensor data, material properties, parameters, metrics, variables, etc., that can be employed to perform, or carry out, exemplary methods and/or processes for use in performing control of production of 3D objects and/or translation of 3D designs into one or more printing processes to produce 3D objects; the controller, computing apparatus 12, can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide the thermoset product, and also adjust the pattern that is traversed by the printhead while depositing material in the layer) (LEIBIG at [0039], [0040], [0052], [0053], [0060], [0062], [0065], [0066], [0067], [0070], FIG. 3, claim 44); and
depositing the thermosetting resin along the deposition path during at least a portion of which
the thermosetting resin is produced and deposited according to the one or more deposition parameters to form one or more layers of the thermosetting resin according to the predefined design (i.e., the controller, computing apparatus 12, is configured to produce the 3D object based on a 3D object design using the thermosetting material delivered by the extruded thermoset printing apparatus, and adjusting one or more parameters of producing the 3D object) (LEIBIG at [0013], [0039], [0040], [0052], [0053], [0060], [0062], [0065], [0066], [0067], [0070], FIG. 3, claim 44).
LEIBIG discloses the systems and methods utilizing various extruded thermoset printing
apparatuses to monitor/fix various issues, control various parameters, or control environmental conditions when generating or creating 3D object (LEIBIG at [0006]); in particular, LEIBIG discloses using sensors to measure the mass of extruded material (i.e., “sensing” at least a portion of the one or more deposited layers of the thermosetting resin), reactive component flowrates the color of combined reactive components, and using the sensor measurements as feedback to carry out the method to verify if sensor data matches theoretical amounts in order for corrections or adjustments to be made (i.e., to detect one or more perturbations present therein, which differ from the predefined design to form a perturbation profile and adjusting the one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile) (LEIBIG at [0006], [0011], [0013], [0066], [0067], [0124], [0130], [0131], [0133]).
Additionally, LEIBIG discloses adjusting the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters of the one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile includes adjustments of a composition of the thermosetting resin (i.e., using the sensor measurements as feedback to carry out the method to verify if sensor data matches theoretical amounts in order for corrections or adjustments to be made; the controller can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide a thermoset product) (LEIBIG at [0006], [0011], [0013], [0060], [0066], [0067], [0124], [0130], [0131], [0133]), wherein the adjustments of a composition of the thermosetting resin being deposited comprises one or more of:
(1) directing at least one additional component into the mixing chamber, and/or ceasing the directing of at least one of the components being directed into the mixing chamber (i.e., the controller can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide a thermoset product) (LEIBIG at [0004], [0005], [0013], [0041], [0060], [0101]-[0107]);
(2) directing at least a third reactive component into the mixing chamber (i.e., the controller can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide a thermoset product) (LEIBIG at [0004], [0005], [0013], [0041], [0060], [0101]-[0107], Table 1);
(3) directing one or more components into the mixing chamber effective to change a cure rate of the thermosetting resin being deposited (i.e., the controller can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide a thermoset product and a cure acceleration of the thermoset product can be adjusted to optimize the cure acceleration of the thermoset product; where, a cure acceleration can be achieved by increasing the extent of reaction at a given time or an accelerant can be a catalyst or a formula with reactants designed with higher reactivity) (LEIBIG at [0011], [0042], [0051]);
(4) adjustment of the composition of the thermosetting resin effective to change a viscosity of the thermosetting resin being deposited (i.e., the controller can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide a thermoset product; and depending on the properties of the reactive components and the geometry of the desired final product, the viscosity can vary due to viscosity increasing as a function of molecular weight of a polymer and a function of the concentration of urethane and urea linkages in the material) (LEIBIG at [0041], [0042], [0047],[0049], [0050]); and/or
(5) adjustment of the composition of the thermosetting resin effective to change a viscoelasticity of the thermosetting resin being deposited (i.e., the method can control, or adjust, various part properties by controlling, or modifying one or more of a plurality of reactive components to provide a thermoset product for use in 3D printing; for example, a proportion of flow from isocyanate sources based on isocyanate attributes may be used to control part flexibility, color, optical refractive index, etc. (for instance, more specifically, smaller molecular weight (Mw) may provide, or give, more rigid materials, higher Mw give more flexible materials); the controller can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide a thermoset product for the first area of the 3D object design to provide the physical property of the first area that is different than the same physical property of the second area, the physical property can be one or more of flexibility, color, optical refractive index, hardness, porosity, and density) (LEIBIG at [0004], [0005], [0060]).
Hence, LEIBIG discloses the claimed c) “sensing” at least a portion of the one or more of the deposited layers of the thermosetting resin to detect one or more perturbations present therein, which differ from the predefined design to form a perturbation profile and d) adjusting the one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile; the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters of the one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile includes adjustments of a composition of the thermosetting resin, wherein the adjustments of a composition of the thermosetting resin being deposited comprises one or more of: (1) directing at least one additional component into the mixing chamber, and/or ceasing the directing of at least one of the components being directed into the mixing chamber; (2) directing at least a third reactive component into the mixing chamber; (3) directing one or more components into the mixing chamber effective to change a cure rate of the thermosetting resin being deposited (4) adjustment of the composition of the thermosetting resin effective to change a viscosity of the thermosetting resin being deposited; and/or (5) adjustment of the composition of the thermosetting resin effective to change a viscoelasticity of the thermosetting resin being deposited.
Though, LEIBIG fails to explicitly disclose the claimed scanner coupled to the thermoset printing apparatus; and c) scanning at least a portion of the one or more of the deposited layers of the thermosetting resin to detect one or more perturbations present therein, which differ from the predefined design to form a perturbation profile; d) adjusting the one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based on the perturbation profile; and e) depositing the subsequent one or more layers of thermosetting resin according to the adjusted deposition parameters to form the 3D object according to the predefined design; wherein the process comprises repeating steps c), d) and e) starting with the subsequent layer of thermosetting resin deposited in step e); and the perturbation profile comprises information directed to a height of the deposited layers of the thermosetting resin.
However, MATSUIK teaches a method for additive fabrication of an object 140 represented by
three-dimensional model data (MATSUIK at [0007]). The method taught by MATSUIK is carried out by
printer/scanner 100, the printer/scanner 100 including a printhead 110 for “printing” successive thin
layers of the object 140 (MATSUIK at [0034], FIG. 1); the printer/scanner 100 also including a
scanner 112, configured to be fixed relative to the printhead 110 such that the same positioning system
135 that is used to position and move the printhead 110 can be used to position the scanner 112, and
the scanner being used to scan the object 140 being fabricated, such that the scan data obtained from
the scanner is used to adapt the control of the printhead and thereby adapt the fabrication of the
object 140 to accommodate deviation of actual fabrication of the object 140 from an ideal fabrication
plan (i.e., a scanner coupled to the thermoset printing apparatus; and c) scanning at least a portion of
the one or more of the deposited layers of the thermosetting resin to detect one or more perturbations
present therein, which differ from the predefined design to form a perturbation profile; d) adjusting
the one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based the perturbation profile) (MATSUIK at [0007], [0034], [0035], FIG. 1).
Additionally, MATSUIK teaches first scan data being obtained from the scanner 112 after
fabricating a first part of the object, where fabricating the first part forms a first surface of the object;
the first scan data is then used to compute first surface data characterizing the first surface of the
object; second fabrication data that characterizes a second set of layers for additive fabrication on the
first surface of the object are then determined according to the first surface data and the three-
dimensional model data for the object; at least one layer of the second set of layers represents
a non-planar surface, i.e., as deposited on the first part of the object and/or a non-uniform
material composition determined from the first surface data; and the second fabrication data is
provided to control a printer for fabricating the second set of layers (i.e., e) depositing the subsequent
one or more layers of thermosetting resin according to the adjusted deposition parameters to form
the 3D object according to the predefined design) (MATSUIK at [0007], [0016], [0035], [0036], [0037],
[0038], [0039], FIGs. 3-4).
Furthermore, MATSUIK teaches fabricating the second part of the object forms a next surface of
the object, and the method further comprises, repeating (e.g., iterating) one or more times: computing, using scan data obtained from the scanner after fabricating a second part of the object forming a next surface of the object, next surface data characterizing the next surface of the object; determining next fabrication data characterizing a next set of layers for additive fabrication on the next surface of the object according to the next surface data and three-dimensional model data for the object; and fabricating a next part of the object on the next surface of the object, including fabricating each layer of the next set of layers according to the determined next fabrication data, fabricating the next part including forming the next surface of the object (i.e., wherein the process comprises repeating steps c), d) and e) starting with the subsequent layer of thermosetting resin deposited in step e)) (MATSUIK at [0007], [0016], [0035], [0036], [0037], [0038], [0039], FIGs. 3-4). MATSUIK further teaches the claimed wherein the perturbation profile includes information directed to a height of the deposited layers of the thermosetting resin (i.e., after the printer/scanner 100 has deposited layers of material for all the slices in the slice plan, it enters a scanning mode in which the scanner 112 senses the printed surface in a manner that captures information related to the relative distance between the scanner and the surface; the information captured by the scanner is a depth map of the partially-fabricated object representing the fabricated height of the object) (MATSUIK at [0035], [0036], [0037], [0039], [0062], [0063], FIG. 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a scanner coupled to a printhead for scanning deposited layers and adjusting deposition parameters based on deviations/perturbations/perturbation profiles as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of MATSUIK above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for adapting the slices rather than depositing corrective layers which results in faster printing by avoiding delays associated with printing corrective layers, and more accurate matching of the fabricated object to the object model (as recognized by MATSUIK at [0006]).
As to claim 2: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. MATSUIK further teaches the claimed wherein the scanner comprises an optical scanner, a laser scanner, a profile sensor, a point laser sensor, a confocal displacement sensor, an X-ray scanner, an area camera, a line scan camera, or a combination thereof (i.e., a number of 3D scanning approaches may be used, including without limitation optical coherence tomography (OCT) such as time domain OCT, frequency domain OCT, swept source OCT, shape from secularity, confocal microscopy, interferometry, terahertz imaging, stereo triangulation, etc. In addition, a multispectral 2D scan (e.g., using a multispectral camera) can be also captured) (MATSUIK at [0035], [0060], FIG. 1), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. MATSUIK further teaches the claimed wherein at least a portion of the scanning is conducted separately from the depositing of the thermosetting resin along the deposition path (i.e., after the printer/scanner 100 has deposited layers of material for all the slices in the slice plan, it enters a scanning mode in which the scanner 112 senses the printed surface that captures information related to the relative distance between the scanner and the surface); wherein at least a portion of the scanning is conducted during the depositing of the thermosetting resin along the deposition path (i.e., the scanning is performed concurrently with the printing process); or a combination thereof (MATSUIK at [0037], [0058]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. MATSUIK further teaches the claimed wherein the perturbation profile comprises: each perturbation detected in the one or more layers of the thermosetting resin; each perturbation detected in one or more portions of the one or more layers of the thermosetting resin; an average of each perturbation detected in the one or more layers of the thermosetting resin; an average of each perturbation detected in one or more portions of the one or more layers of the thermosetting resin; or a combination thereof (i.e., scan data 350 provides, for multiple x-y coordinates, a density value as a function of the distance from the scanner in the z-direction) (MATSUIK at [0039], [0043]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 5: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters includes adjustments to the deposition path (i.e., a layer translation path can be adjusted to optimize the layer translational path of the extruded thermoset product) (LEIBIG at [0013], [0052], [0053]).
As to claim 6: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters includes adjustments of a bead spacing at which the thermosetting resin is deposited onto a substrate or at least a portion of another layer (i.e., controlling aspect ratio of the bead can provide for printing optimization and provide for a printed 3D object with desirable object resolution; the aspect ratio can be used to set the space filling attributes of a material) (LEIBIG at [0049], [0050]).
As to claim 7: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further teaches the claimed wherein the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters includes adjustments of a tip height determined as a distance of the extrusion nozzle above the layer and/or substrate on which the thermosetting resin is deposited during at least a portion of the deposition path (i.e., the method controls or adjusts bead shapes by adjusting the height of the nozzle from the 3D object being printed) (LEIBIG at [0012], [0062]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Additionally, MATSUIK further teaches the claimed wherein the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters includes adjustments of a tip height determined as a distance of the extrusion nozzle above the layer and/or substrate on which the thermosetting resin is deposited during at least a portion of the deposition path (MATSUIK at [0039], [0062]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 8: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 7. LEIBIG further teaches the claimed wherein the tip height is adjusted partially based on measured height of a deposited layer provided by the scanner to prevent accumulation of the thermosetting resin on the extrusion nozzle; to prevent contact of the extrusion nozzle with the deposited layer of thermosetting resin, or a combination thereof (i.e. the extrusion nozzle can accumulate parts of reacted thermoset material on the tip of the nozzle, and this “blob” of material can interfere with any previously printed material marking the print and potentially misaligning the extrusion nozzle) (LEIBIG at [0012], [0062], [0160]-[0161]).
Additionally, MATSUIK further teaches the claimed wherein the tip height is adjusted partially based on measured height of a deposited layer provided by the scanner to prevent accumulation of the thermosetting resin on the extrusion nozzle; to prevent contact of the extrusion nozzle with the deposited layer of thermosetting resin, or a combination thereof (MATSUIK at [0039], [0062]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 9: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters includes adjustments of an extrusion percent at which the thermosetting resin is extruded during at least a portion of the deposition path, based on a total amount of the thermosetting resin predicted to be required during the portion of the deposition path according to the predefined design (i.e., the cumulative volume of material that is intended to be extruded is noted by the G-Code interpreter running on the 3D printer throughout the production of an object; by adding force sensors to each corner of the build surface the mass of extruded material can be measured throughout the production of the 3D object; and by monitoring the difference between the intended mass of material to be extruded and the actual mass as measured by the force sensors mounted on the build surface it can be determined if the actual mass of material deposited is significantly less than that intended) (LEIBIG at [0006], [0129]-[0131]; [0150]; [0153]; [0156], [0159], FIG. 8).
As to claim 10: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters includes adjustments of a flow rate of the thermosetting resin through the extrusion nozzle during at least a portion of the deposition path (i.e., a flow rate of the thermoset product through the extrusion nozzle can be adjusted to optimize the flow rate through the extrusion nozzle) (LEIBIG at [0011], [0042], [0045], [0046], [0146], [0159]).
As to claim 11: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters includes adjustments of a pressure applied to the thermosetting resin within the extrusion nozzle during at least portion of the deposition path (i.e., a flow rate of the thermoset product through the extrusion nozzle can be adjusted to optimize the flow rate through the extrusion nozzle, such that the minimum rate can be set by the strength of the pump on the printer; motor displacement can be controlled to achieve desired material flow rate or stop flow rate) (LEIBIG at [0006], [0013], [0045]).
As to claim 12: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 11. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the pressure applied to the thermosetting resin within the extrusion nozzle during at least portion of the deposition path is reduced or negative in an amount sufficient to prevent flow of the thermosetting resin through the extrusion nozzle during the portion of the deposition path (i.e., a flow rate of the thermoset product through the extrusion nozzle can be adjusted to optimize the flow rate through the extrusion nozzle, such that the minimum rate can be set by the strength of the pump on the printer; motor displacement can be controlled to achieve desired material flow rate or stop flow rate) (LEIBIG at [0006], [0013], [0045]).
As to claim 13: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjusting of one or more deposition parameters includes adjustments of a translation speed of the extrusion nozzle along at least a portion of the deposition path (i.e., a movement speed can be adjusted to optimize the movement speed of the extruded thermoset product and of the extrusion nozzle) (LEIBIG at [0042], [0055]).
As to claim 15: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjusting of the composition of the thermosetting resin being deposited includes adjusting a residence time and/or a temperature of the plurality of components within the mixing chamber (i.e., the controller can adjust one or more parameters of the actuator to produce the 3D object based on a reaction rate between a first reactive component and a second reactive component; the flow rate of the material combined with the volume of the mixing chamber, can set the extent of reaction of the material) (LEIBIG at [0041], [0046], [0047]).
As to claim 16: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjustment of the composition of the thermosetting resin comprises increasing an amount of one or more of the plurality of components into the mixing chamber relative to at least one other component (i.e., the controller can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide a thermoset product) (LEIBIG at [0004], [0005], [0060]).
As to claim 21: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. LEIBIG further discloses the claimed wherein the adjustment of the composition of the thermosetting resin effective to change a viscosity of the thermosetting resin being deposited comprises: i) beginning the directing one or more other components into the mixing chamber;
ii) increasing and/or decreasing an amount of one or more of the plurality of components being directed into the mixing chamber relative to another component; iii) stopping the directing of one or more components into the mixing chamber; iv) adjusting a residence time of the plurality of components within the mixing chamber; v) adjusting a temperature of the plurality of components within the mixing chamber; or a combination thereof (i.e., the controller can adjust one or both of the amount and flow rate of one or more of first, second, and third reactive components to provide a thermoset product; and depending on the properties of the reactive components and the geometry of the desired final product, the viscosity can vary due to viscosity increasing as a function of molecular weight of a polymer and a function of the concentration of urethane and urea linkages in the material; and reactive components are to be blended in precise ratios to create specific properties from reactive components) (LEIBIG at [0041], [0042], [0047],[0049], [0050], [0101], [0106], [0107], [0108]).
As to claim 23: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. MATSUIK further teaches the claimed wherein the predefined design comprises one or more necessary attributes (i.e., the method can accommodate deviation in the shape, material composition, and/or color of the object as it is being fabricated as compared to a model of the object) and one or more optional attributes (i.e., slices with thickness variation), and wherein the depositing of the subsequent one or more layers of thermosetting resin according to the adjusted deposition parameters forms a 3D object comprising optional attributes which differs from the predefined design, and which comprises all of the necessary attributes of the predefined design (i.e., partially corrective layers may be planned using slices with thickness variation) (MATSUIK at [0035], [0036], [0037], [0062], [0063], FIG. 10), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 24: LEIBIG and MATSUIK teach the three-dimensional object production process of claim 1. MATSUIK further teaches the claimed wherein the adjusting of the one or more deposition parameters of one or more subsequent layers based the perturbation profile results in a 3D object comprising at least one portion that differs in a total height from the predefined design by a distance of less than or equal to about a height of one of the deposited layers (i.e., partially corrective layers may be planned using slices with thickness variation; as illustrated, slices 1041-1045 may be planned to have varying thickness, and planned to achieve an overall surface 1045a, which may be but is not necessarily planar) (MATSUIK at [0035], [0036], [0037], [0039], [0062], [0063], FIG. 10), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEIBIG et al. (US 2019/0168446; made of record in the IDS filed on 07/15/2022) in view of MATSUIK et al. (US 2018/0169953; of record).
As to claim 26: LEIBIG discloses the claimed three-dimensional (3D) object production process (i.e., three-dimensional (3D) object production methods for generating or creating 3D objects) (LEIBIG at [0001], [0004], [0006], [0011], [0012], [0013], [0039], [0065], claim 50) comprising:
providing a thermoset printing apparatus (i.e., the 3D object production method can be
operably coupled to an extruded thermoset printing apparatus) (LEIBIG at [0039], [0065], [0075], claim 50) comprising:
a mixing chamber into which a plurality of components comprising a first reactive
component and a second reactive component are dir