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 .
Continued Examination Under
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been carefully and fully considered. With respect to applicant’s argument of the remarks which recites:
“Nowhere in Wighton is there a discussion of attributing a degree of quality to surface segments. Instead, there is only a discussion of the type and use of support tips… Clearly, this is not an assessment of the “sensitivity to post-processing of the respective surface segments”
The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the previous rejection, and in light of the amendments now rejects the claim language in view of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers. Eggers is relied upon to teach the amended claim limitations.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wighton et al. (US20140303942, herein Wighton), in view of Anand et al. (US20170372480, herein Anand), and in further view of Eggers et al. (US20100228369, herein Eggers).
Regarding claim 1, Wighton teaches A method of imposing quality requirements on a 3D model including support structures to be built by an additive manufacturing apparatus (Fig. 1, [0092] each region is above or below a threshold deemed to be adequate support for a given material under certain build conditions, [0102] supportedness due to different types of forces may be kept distinct for each region of the model, [0089] layer-by-layer additive manufacturing) comprising: a platform for holding the 3D object corresponding to the 3D model (Fig. 1 build platform 10), the method comprising: a surface geometry and an orientation of the 3D model with respect to the platform (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0062] oriented normal to the surface of object 14 at the location where the support tips are coupled to the object. However, support tips may alternatively be oriented at an angle offset from the normal in order to further optimize the characteristics of the support structure by modifying the breaking strength of support tips when exposed to forces from differing directions, [0074] support tips are added to the model of the object in Step 568 such that each has a surface area and dimensions that depend on the strength determined in the preceding step) wherein the surface geometry includes a plurality of surface segments (Fig. 4) … that are sensitive against post-processing ([0032] the inventors have recognized and appreciated that the use of support structure attachment points as described herein (also referred to as “support tips” or “tips”) may result in superior performance, easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques, [0065] the one or more support points include one or more points located interior to the surface of an object. A support tip generated using one of these support points may therefore protrude some distance into the object…Such a support tip may have increased mechanical strength compared with a support tip that ends at the surface of the object, while not increasing the likelihood of defects present on the object after removal of the support structure); … attributing a degree of quality to each of the plurality of surface segments respectively based on the recognized features that are sensitive against post-processing, to indicate protection against post-processing for the subsequent removal of the support structures, each degree of quality used to indicate a sensitivity to post-processing of the respective surface segment ([0061] FIG. 4, those support tips 22 located further away from the axis of the tank 28 may be provided with greater strength than those located closer to the axis 20. The strength of a support tip may be adjusted in any suitable way, including, but not limited to, adjusting the diameter of the support tip, adjusting the length of the support tip, adjusting the cross-sectional shape of the support tip (e.g., using geometries such as “X” shapes, hollow cylinders, triangles, rhombuses, rectangles, etc.), or combinations thereof, [0032] the inventors have recognized and appreciated that the use of support structure attachment points as described herein (also referred to as “support tips” or “tips”) may result in superior performance, easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques); calculating, based on the orientation and the surface geometry, a measure of need of the surface segments respectively to be supported by the plurality of support structures (Fig. 4, [0011] calculating a supportedness value for the first region of the object, [0054] determining a direction normal to a surface of an object); calculating, based on the measure of need for support and the degree of quality attributed, positions on the surface segments where a support structure is added (Fig. 5A, Fig. 4, [0067] an orientation of at least one support tip included in the support structure is calculated by determining an offset from the direction normal to the surface at the corresponding support point. For example, a support tip may be oriented at an angle offset from the normal, which may increase the breaking strength of the support tip when exposed to a force in a particular direction, a point is calculated by determining an offset from a support point in the direction of the normal vector. The offset distance is preferably such that a sufficiently long support tip is generated to allow for the support to be easily broken away from the object, but not so much as to cause unwanted breaks to occur during the fabrication procedure, [0059] The relationship between the degree of support provided by the object being fabricated and the optimal size of support tips may exist along a continuum, such that areas of intermediate supportedness receive intermediate strength support tips 38, [0061] FIG. 4, those support tips 22 located further away from the axis of the tank 28 may be provided with greater strength than those located closer to the axis 20. The strength of a support tip may be adjusted in any suitable way, including, but not limited to, adjusting the diameter of the support tip, adjusting the length of the support tip, adjusting the cross-sectional shape of the support tip (e.g., using geometries such as “X” shapes, hollow cylinders, triangles, rhombuses, rectangles, etc.), or combinations thereof) ; adding the support structure to the 3D model based on the calculated positions and the degree of quality attributed; (Fig. 4, Fig. 5B, 10B, [0045] additive fabrication technique wherein it is desired to add supports to an object being produced, [0096] FIG. 10A and/or method 1050 shown in FIG. 10B. As one example, a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated, [0059] The relationship between the degree of support provided by the object being fabricated and the optimal size of support tips may exist along a continuum, such that areas of intermediate supportedness receive intermediate strength support tips 38, [0074] the dimensions of the support tip may be further modified with reference to multiple weighted factors including the distance from the axis and the supportedness, the results of mechanical analysis of the material, and/or an extent to which the object demands support at each contact point as indicated. When using a strength determination, support tips are added to the model of the object in Step 568 such that each has a surface area and dimensions that depend on the strength determined in the preceding step, [0007] the support structure and the object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication techniques, comprising identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided, identifying one or more support points within at least a first region of the one or more regions, and generating the support structure for the object, the support structure comprising one or more support tips coupled to the object at the one or more support points, the support tips being generated based at least in part on a direction normal to the surface of the object at the respective support point.) and mechanically post-processing the 3D model into the 3D object (Fig. 10B, [0045] additive fabrication technique wherein it is desired to add supports to an object being produced, [0096] can reorient the object so as to modify the geometry to which a support structure is to be coupled, and thus improve the quality, speed, and cost of the final object, [0121] a processor to determine the supportedness of one or more regions of an object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication techniques; and/or to generate a support structure, with or without support tips, for an object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication), wherein mechanically post-processing the 3D model into the 3D object comprises printing the 3D object and removing support structures from the printed 3D object ([0078] model for printing in Step 576, [0032] easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques, [0043] 3D printed support structures).
Wighton does not teach attributing a degree of quality …and the degree of quality attributed …generating, by a trained neural network, recognized features of the 3D model using the 3D model as an input;… the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing;
Anand teaches generating, by a trained neural network, recognized features of the 3D model using the 3D model as an input; ([0088] trained neural network to implement geometric compensation to an STL file, [0231] ANN…used in applications like regression analysis, classification, pattern recognition, [0243] the application may be used to identify all the surfaces for the given part within the CAD environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wighton’s teaching of additive manufacturing support structures with Anand’s teaching of using a neural network to recognize features of a part in a CAD environment. The combined teaching provides an expected result additive manufacturing support structures using a neural network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to more accurately additively manufacture support structures.
The combination of Wighton and Anand do not teach the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing;
Eggers teaches the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing ([0070] the calculation of support points may be refined once the support mesh has been designed using the support mesh as an input in order to assign additional or remove superfluous support points followed by a refinement of the support mesh, [0078] removal of superfluous edges of the support mesh may be done based on a ranking mechanism, as illustrated in FIG. 9. Each node of the initial mesh is ranked. The rank R of an “external” node 91 located inside object 90, or the rank of a node at or in the platform is given a rank zero. The node rank increases when traversing upwards on a vertical edge but is preserved when traversing upwards on an inclined edge. In case multiple rankings are possible for a specific node, e.g. a vertical edge increases the rank from R to R+1, but an inclined edge connected to the same node preserves rank R, the highest rank is chosen, [0082] the process described above, path 111 is now defined by following the lowest square rank instead of the highest one, [0066] Layers belonging to a part of the object that requires a higher surface quality but less accuracy typically have fewer connections to the support, as separating the support from the built object derogates fine features less. Increasing the critical overhang angle results in smaller support regions and therefore fewer connections to the support are required, [0008] this separation step requires a minimal effort and does not damage the surface or fine features of the object. To allow an easy removal of the support, it is already known that providing the walls with notches at the top and/or the bottom restrict the contact with the object and make it easier to remove the support. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wighton’s teaching of additive manufacturing support structures with Eggers’s teaching of assigning and ranking connection nodes based on quality. The combined teaching provides an expected result additive manufacturing support structures where the connection nodes are assigned and ranked based on quality. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to more accurately additively manufacture support structures.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers teach The method according to claim 1, wherein in the attributing step a user manually marks, on a display of the 3D model one or more of the plurality of surface segments respectively with a desired degree of quality (Wighton, [0096] FIG. 10A and/or method 1050 shown in FIG. 10B. As one example, a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated, [0012] a graphical user interface presented using a display, and indicate the supportedness value for the first region of the object by coloring a portion of the graphical user interface using one or more colors, at least one of the one or more colors being based at least in part on the supportedness value, [0039] By additionally including support tips in the support structure, a user may ensure that an object will be supported in the desired way while also minimizing the support structure's effect on the quality, [0096] a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated. Alternatively, the user may remove support structure where the object has more than sufficient levels of support… In each of the foregoing examples of user interaction, the techniques described herein can be used to evaluate the relative success or merits of each support structure ).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the support structures for which the calculated positions fall into surface segments which have been attributed a high degree of quality are not added to the 3D model (Wighton, [0096] edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated, [0036] stronger support tips to regions having comparative low self-supportedness compared with regions having comparatively high self-supportedness).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers teach The method according to claim 1, wherein in the adding the support structures for which the calculated positions fall into surface segments which have been attributed a high degree of quality are displaced to nearby surface segments which have been attributed a low degree of quality (Wighton, [0096] a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated. Alternatively, the user may remove support structure where the object has more than sufficient levels of support… In each of the foregoing examples of user interaction, the techniques described herein can be used to evaluate the relative success or merits of each support structure).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers teach The method according to claim 1, wherein in the calculating step, first, the positions of all local minima of the 3D model are found (Wighton, [0100] supportedness of a voxel may be represented as a weighted average, sum, or minima of supportedness contributed by neighboring voxels, weighted by epsilon, [0101] calculating the supportedness of a given region of an object…calculate the position of support structures): and in the adding the support structures corresponding to the positions at the local minima are added to the 3D model regardless of the attributed degree of quality ([0049] by positioning support tips using the normals of the object surface, the surface area of contact between a support tip and the object can be maintained at, or close to, the minimum value, regardless of the object geometry, [0100] supportedness of a voxel may be represented as a weighted average, sum, or minima of supportedness contributed by neighboring voxels, weighted by epsilon).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers teach The method according to claim 1, wherein in the calculating, the ith surface segment is assigned a quantity which indicates a measure of the need of the ith surface segment to be supported through a support structure, wherein a larger value of si indicates a stronger need for support (Wighton, [0096] a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated. Alternatively, the user may remove support structure where the object has more than sufficient levels of support… In each of the foregoing examples of user interaction, the techniques described herein can be used to evaluate the relative success or merits of each support structure, [0011] the supportedness value being indicative of a degree of support that the support structure, [0036] stronger support tips to regions having comparative low self-supportedness compared with regions having comparatively high self-supportedness).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers teach The method according to claim 8, wherein the quantity si is a scalar quantity which is a function of the inclination of the ith surface segment with respect to the building direction (Wighton, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0102] support structures may support the object against forces pulling in multiple vectors. In such instances, supportedness values may be combined in various ways. Depending on the nature of the forces applied against the model during the additive fabrication process, supportedness values can be chosen based on the maximum, minimum, average, or vector product of competing forces).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers teach The method according to claim 9, wherein no support structure is added to the 3D model at a position that falls into a surface segment whose normal vector has a positive component in the building direction (Wighton, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0102] in addition to gravity, support structures are provided to counteract other forces, such as a warping or distorting force caused by curing, deposition, and/or other steps during an additive fabrication process…support structures may support the object against forces pulling in multiple vectors. In such instances, supportedness values may be combined in various ways. Depending on the nature of the forces applied against the model during the additive fabrication process, supportedness values can be chosen based on the maximum, minimum, average, or vector product of competing forces).
Regarding claim 15, Wighton teaches A system comprising: a processor; and a memory, in communication with the processor, with one or more computer program instructions stored on the memory, the computer program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising ([0113] program modules may be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices, [0121] the various methods or processes outlined herein may be implemented in a combination of hardware and of software executable on one or more processors that employ any one of a variety of operating systems or platforms): defining a surface geometry and an orientation of a 3D model with respect to a platform for holding a 3D object corresponding to the 3D model ([0007] the support structure and the object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication techniques, comprising identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided, identifying one or more support points within at least a first region of the one or more regions, Fig. 1 build platform 10), wherein the surface geometry includes a plurality of surface segments (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0062] oriented normal to the surface of object 14 at the location where the support tips are coupled to the object. However, support tips may alternatively be oriented at an angle offset from the normal in order to further optimize the characteristics of the support structure by modifying the breaking strength of support tips when exposed to forces from differing directions, [0074] support tips are added to the model of the object in Step 568 such that each has a surface area and dimensions that depend on the strength determined in the preceding step); that are sensitive against post-processing using ([0032] the inventors have recognized and appreciated that the use of support structure attachment points as described herein (also referred to as “support tips” or “tips”) may result in superior performance, easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques, [0065] the one or more support points include one or more points located interior to the surface of an object. A support tip generated using one of these support points may therefore protrude some distance into the object…Such a support tip may have increased mechanical strength compared with a support tip that ends at the surface of the object, while not increasing the likelihood of defects present on the object after removal of the support structure) … attributing a degree of quality to each of the plurality of surface segments respectively, based on the recognized features, to indicate protection against post-processing for the subsequent removal of support structures to be built by additive manufacturing, each degree of quality used to indicate a sensitivity to post-processing of the respective surface segment ([0061] FIG. 4, those support tips 22 located further away from the axis of the tank 28 may be provided with greater strength than those located closer to the axis 20. The strength of a support tip may be adjusted in any suitable way, including, but not limited to, adjusting the diameter of the support tip, adjusting the length of the support tip, adjusting the cross-sectional shape of the support tip (e.g., using geometries such as “X” shapes, hollow cylinders, triangles, rhombuses, rectangles, etc.), or combinations thereof, [0032] the inventors have recognized and appreciated that the use of support structure attachment points as described herein (also referred to as “support tips” or “tips”) may result in superior performance, easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques); calculating, based on the orientation, and the surface geometry, a measure of need for support of the surface segments respectively to be supported by the plurality of support structures ([0011] calculating a supportedness value for the first region of the object, [0054] determining a direction normal to a surface of an object); calculating based on the measure of need for support and the degree of quality attributed, positions on the surface segments where the support structure is added (Fig. 4, Fig. 5A, [0067] an orientation of at least one support tip included in the support structure is calculated by determining an offset from the direction normal to the surface at the corresponding support point. For example, a support tip may be oriented at an angle offset from the normal, which may increase the breaking strength of the support tip when exposed to a force in a particular direction, a point is calculated by determining an offset from a support point in the direction of the normal vector. The offset distance is preferably such that a sufficiently long support tip is generated to allow for the support to be easily broken away from the object, but not so much as to cause unwanted breaks to occur during the fabrication procedure, [0059] The relationship between the degree of support provided by the object being fabricated and the optimal size of support tips may exist along a continuum, such that areas of intermediate supportedness receive intermediate strength support tips 38, [0061] FIG. 4, those support tips 22 located further away from the axis of the tank 28 may be provided with greater strength than those located closer to the axis 20. The strength of a support tip may be adjusted in any suitable way, including, but not limited to, adjusting the diameter of the support tip, adjusting the length of the support tip, adjusting the cross-sectional shape of the support tip (e.g., using geometries such as “X” shapes, hollow cylinders, triangles, rhombuses, rectangles, etc.), or combinations thereof); adding the support structure to the 3D model based on the calculated positions and the degree of quality attributed (Fig. 4, Fig. 5B, 10B, [0045] additive fabrication technique wherein it is desired to add supports to an object being produced, [0096] FIG. 10A and/or method 1050 shown in FIG. 10B. As one example, a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated, [0059] The relationship between the degree of support provided by the object being fabricated and the optimal size of support tips may exist along a continuum, such that areas of intermediate supportedness receive intermediate strength support tips 38, [0074] the dimensions of the support tip may be further modified with reference to multiple weighted factors including the distance from the axis and the supportedness, the results of mechanical analysis of the material, and/or an extent to which the object demands support at each contact point as indicated. When using a strength determination, support tips are added to the model of the object in Step 568 such that each has a surface area and dimensions that depend on the strength determined in the preceding step, [0007] the support structure and the object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication techniques, comprising identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided, identifying one or more support points within at least a first region of the one or more regions, and generating the support structure for the object, the support structure comprising one or more support tips coupled to the object at the one or more support points, the support tips being generated based at least in part on a direction normal to the surface of the object at the respective support point.) and mechanically post-processing the 3D model into the 3D object (Fig. 10B, [0045] additive fabrication technique wherein it is desired to add supports to an object being produced, [0096] can reorient the object so as to modify the geometry to which a support structure is to be coupled, and thus improve the quality, speed, and cost of the final object, [0121] a processor to determine the supportedness of one or more regions of an object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication techniques; and/or to generate a support structure, with or without support tips, for an object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication), wherein mechanically post-processing the 3D model into the 3D object comprises printing the 3D object and removing support structures from the printed 3D object [0078] model for printing in Step 576, [0032] easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques, [0043] 3D printed support structures).
Wighton does not teach generating, by a trained neural network, recognized features of the 3D model using the 3D model as an input;… the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing;
Anand teaches generating, by a trained neural network, recognized features of the 3D model using the 3D model as an input; ([0088] trained neural network to implement geometric compensation to an STL file, [0231] ANN…used in applications like regression analysis, classification, pattern recognition, [0243] the application may be used to identify all the surfaces for the given part within the CAD environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wighton’s teaching of additive manufacturing support structures with Anand’s teaching of using a neural network to recognize features of a part in a CAD environment. The combined teaching provides an expected result additive manufacturing support structures using a neural network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to more accurately additively manufacture support structures.
The combination of Wighton and Anand do not teach the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing;
Eggers teaches the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing ([0070] the calculation of support points may be refined once the support mesh has been designed using the support mesh as an input in order to assign additional or remove superfluous support points followed by a refinement of the support mesh, [0078] removal of superfluous edges of the support mesh may be done based on a ranking mechanism, as illustrated in FIG. 9. Each node of the initial mesh is ranked. The rank R of an “external” node 91 located inside object 90, or the rank of a node at or in the platform is given a rank zero. The node rank increases when traversing upwards on a vertical edge but is preserved when traversing upwards on an inclined edge. In case multiple rankings are possible for a specific node, e.g. a vertical edge increases the rank from R to R+1, but an inclined edge connected to the same node preserves rank R, the highest rank is chosen, [0082] the process described above, path 111 is now defined by following the lowest square rank instead of the highest one, [0066] Layers belonging to a part of the object that requires a higher surface quality but less accuracy typically have fewer connections to the support, as separating the support from the built object derogates fine features less. Increasing the critical overhang angle results in smaller support regions and therefore fewer connections to the support are required, [0008] this separation step requires a minimal effort and does not damage the surface or fine features of the object. To allow an easy removal of the support, it is already known that providing the walls with notches at the top and/or the bottom restrict the contact with the object and make it easier to remove the support. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wighton’s teaching of additive manufacturing support structures with Eggers’s teaching of assigning and ranking connection nodes based on quality. The combined teaching provides an expected result additive manufacturing support structures where the connection nodes are assigned and ranked based on quality. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to more accurately additively manufacture support structures.
Regarding claim 16, Wighton teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising ([0113] program modules may be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices, [0121] the various methods or processes outlined herein may be implemented in a combination of hardware and of software executable on one or more processors that employ any one of a variety of operating systems or platforms): defining a surface geometry and an orientation of a 3D model with respect to a platform for holding a 3D object corresponding to the 3D model ([0007] the support structure and the object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication techniques, comprising identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided, identifying one or more support points within at least a first region of the one or more regions, Fig. 1 build platform 10, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0062] oriented normal to the surface of object 14 at the location where the support tips are coupled to the object. However, support tips may alternatively be oriented at an angle offset from the normal in order to further optimize the characteristics of the support structure by modifying the breaking strength of support tips when exposed to forces from differing directions, [0074] support tips are added to the model of the object in Step 568 such that each has a surface area and dimensions that depend on the strength determined in the preceding step), wherein the surface geometry includes a plurality of surface segments (Fig. 4): …that are sensitive against post-processing using ([0032] the inventors have recognized and appreciated that the use of support structure attachment points as described herein (also referred to as “support tips” or “tips”) may result in superior performance, easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques, [0065] the one or more support points include one or more points located interior to the surface of an object. A support tip generated using one of these support points may therefore protrude some distance into the object…Such a support tip may have increased mechanical strength compared with a support tip that ends at the surface of the object, while not increasing the likelihood of defects present on the object after removal of the support structure)… attributing a degree of quality to each of the plurality of surface segments respectively, based on the recognized features that are sensitive against post-processing, to indicate protection against post-processing for the subsequent removal of support structures to be built by additive manufacturing, each degree of quality used to indicate a sensitivity to post-processing of the respective surface segment ([0061] FIG. 4, those support tips 22 located further away from the axis of the tank 28 may be provided with greater strength than those located closer to the axis 20. The strength of a support tip may be adjusted in any suitable way, including, but not limited to, adjusting the diameter of the support tip, adjusting the length of the support tip, adjusting the cross-sectional shape of the support tip (e.g., using geometries such as “X” shapes, hollow cylinders, triangles, rhombuses, rectangles, etc.), or combinations thereof, [0032] the inventors have recognized and appreciated that the use of support structure attachment points as described herein (also referred to as “support tips” or “tips”) may result in superior performance, easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques): calculating, based on the orientation and the surface geometry, a measure of need for support of the surface segments respectively to be supported by the plurality of support structures (Fig. 4, [0011] calculating a supportedness value for the first region of the object, [0054] determining a direction normal to a surface of an object); calculating, based on the measure of need for support and the degree of quality attributed, positions on the surface segments where the support structure is added(Fig. 5A, Fig. 4, [0067] an orientation of at least one support tip included in the support structure is calculated by determining an offset from the direction normal to the surface at the corresponding support point. For example, a support tip may be oriented at an angle offset from the normal, which may increase the breaking strength of the support tip when exposed to a force in a particular direction, a point is calculated by determining an offset from a support point in the direction of the normal vector. The offset distance is preferably such that a sufficiently long support tip is generated to allow for the support to be easily broken away from the object, but not so much as to cause unwanted breaks to occur during the fabrication procedure, [0059] The relationship between the degree of support provided by the object being fabricated and the optimal size of support tips may exist along a continuum, such that areas of intermediate supportedness receive intermediate strength support tips 38, [0061] FIG. 4, those support tips 22 located further away from the axis of the tank 28 may be provided with greater strength than those located closer to the axis 20. The strength of a support tip may be adjusted in any suitable way, including, but not limited to, adjusting the diameter of the support tip, adjusting the length of the support tip, adjusting the cross-sectional shape of the support tip (e.g., using geometries such as “X” shapes, hollow cylinders, triangles, rhombuses, rectangles, etc.), or combinations thereof): adding the support structure to the 3D model based on the calculated positions and the degree of quality attributed (Fig. 4, Fig. 5B, 10B, [0045] additive fabrication technique wherein it is desired to add supports to an object being produced, [0096] FIG. 10A and/or method 1050 shown in FIG. 10B. As one example, a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated, [0059] The relationship between the degree of support provided by the object being fabricated and the optimal size of support tips may exist along a continuum, such that areas of intermediate supportedness receive intermediate strength support tips 38, [0074] the dimensions of the support tip may be further modified with reference to multiple weighted factors including the distance from the axis and the supportedness, the results of mechanical analysis of the material, and/or an extent to which the object demands support at each contact point as indicated. When using a strength determination, support tips are added to the model of the object in Step 568 such that each has a surface area and dimensions that depend on the strength determined in the preceding step, [0007] the support structure and the object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication techniques, comprising identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided, identifying one or more support points within at least a first region of the one or more regions, and generating the support structure for the object, the support structure comprising one or more support tips coupled to the object at the one or more support points, the support tips being generated based at least in part on a direction normal to the surface of the object at the respective support point) and mechanically post-processing the 3D model into the 3D object (Fig. 10B, [0045] additive fabrication technique wherein it is desired to add supports to an object being produced, [0096] can reorient the object so as to modify the geometry to which a support structure is to be coupled, and thus improve the quality, speed, and cost of the final object, [0121] a processor to determine the supportedness of one or more regions of an object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication techniques; and/or to generate a support structure, with or without support tips, for an object to be fabricated via one or more additive fabrication), wherein mechanically post-processing the 3D model into the 3D object comprises printing the 3D object and removing support structures from the printed 3D object ([0078] model for printing in Step 576, [0032] easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques, [0043] 3D printed support structures)..
Wighton does not teach generating, by a trained neural network, recognized features of the 3D model using the 3D model as an input;… the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing;
Anand teaches generating, by a trained neural network, recognized features of the 3D model using the 3D model as an input; ([0088] trained neural network to implement geometric compensation to an STL file, [0231] ANN…used in applications like regression analysis, classification, pattern recognition, [0243] the application may be used to identify all the surfaces for the given part within the CAD environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wighton’s teaching of additive manufacturing support structures with Anand’s teaching of using a neural network to recognize features of a part in a CAD environment. The combined teaching provides an expected result additive manufacturing support structures using a neural network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to more accurately additively manufacture support structures.
The combination of Wighton and Anand do not teach the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing;
Eggers teaches the degree of quality selected from a low degree of quality and a high degree of quality, wherein the high degree of quality is an indication that the respective surface segment requires protection in post-processing ([0070] the calculation of support points may be refined once the support mesh has been designed using the support mesh as an input in order to assign additional or remove superfluous support points followed by a refinement of the support mesh, [0078] removal of superfluous edges of the support mesh may be done based on a ranking mechanism, as illustrated in FIG. 9. Each node of the initial mesh is ranked. The rank R of an “external” node 91 located inside object 90, or the rank of a node at or in the platform is given a rank zero. The node rank increases when traversing upwards on a vertical edge but is preserved when traversing upwards on an inclined edge. In case multiple rankings are possible for a specific node, e.g. a vertical edge increases the rank from R to R+1, but an inclined edge connected to the same node preserves rank R, the highest rank is chosen, [0082] the process described above, path 111 is now defined by following the lowest square rank instead of the highest one, [0066] Layers belonging to a part of the object that requires a higher surface quality but less accuracy typically have fewer connections to the support, as separating the support from the built object derogates fine features less. Increasing the critical overhang angle results in smaller support regions and therefore fewer connections to the support are required, [0008] this separation step requires a minimal effort and does not damage the surface or fine features of the object. To allow an easy removal of the support, it is already known that providing the walls with notches at the top and/or the bottom restrict the contact with the object and make it easier to remove the support. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wighton’s teaching of additive manufacturing support structures with Eggers’s teaching of assigning and ranking connection nodes based on quality. The combined teaching provides an expected result additive manufacturing support structures where the connection nodes are assigned and ranked based on quality. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to more accurately additively manufacture support structures.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wighton, Anand, and Eggers teach The method according to claim 1, … to recognize the surface segments which are sensitive against post-processing (Wighton, [0011] the supportedness value being indicative of a degree of support that the support structure provides to the first region, [0032] use of support structure attachment points as described herein (also referred to as “support tips” or “tips”) may result in superior performance, easier post-processing, and cleaner removal than conventional support techniques)
Anand further teaches wherein the trained neural network is trained using a training dataset of real or simulated 3D models ([0088] trained neural network to implement geometric compensation to an STL file, [0229] The 3D point location co-ordinates of the part nodes defined by ANSYS before and after the simulation may be used as the required input training datasets for the ANN model. [0243] the application may be used to identify all the surfaces for the given part within the CAD environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wighton’s teaching of additive manufacturing support structures with Anand’s teaching of using a neural network to recognize features of a part in a CAD environment. The combined teaching provides an expected result additive manufacturing support structures using a neural network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to more accurately additively manufacture support structures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are objected to as allowable subject matter. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The reasons for allowance of Claim 11 is that the prior art of record, including the reference(s) cited below, neither anticipates, not renders obvious the recited combination as a whole; including the limitation of “
PNG
media_image1.png
363
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”.
As dependent claims 12-14 depend from an allowable claim 11; they are at least allowable for the same reasons as noted supra.
The prior art made of record Wighton (US20140303942), Anand (US20170372480), Sterenthal (20180056595), Rao (11884004), Eggers (US20100228369), and Schmidt (US10226895) neither anticipates nor render obvious the above-recited combinations for at least the reasons specified and as shown in Applicant’s Arguments filed 04/03/2024.
Examiner notes that the prior art made of record does not teach the above-recited combination as a whole.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art Cited by Examiner
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Wighton (US20140303942) discloses a method for evaluating a support structure calculating a supportedness value for regions of the object and additively manufacturing the support structures.
Anand (US20170372480) discloses applying a trained neural network to modify 3D objects for additive manufacturing.
Sterenthal (20180056595) discloses additive manufacturing of a support structure for a 3D object identifying a region of the 3D object requiring a support structure.
Rao (11884004) discloses a system for support removal in stereolithographic additive manufacturing.
Eggers (US20100228369) discloses an apparatus for automatic support generation for an object.
Schmidt (US10226895) discloses generating support material for 3D printing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Jacimovic (US20220009164) discloses post processing 3D printing components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE T FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0634. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 1-9pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YVONNE TRANG FOLLANSBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117