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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The first word of the claim, “In”, is inappropriate (likely the result of a typographical oversight) and should be deleted. The claim should then read “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for (a method falls within the statutory categories of invention. The recitation of generic computer implementation is mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computer components as per MPEP 2106.05(f).)
generating a structure mesh of a structure that is to be built up in a three-dimensional build-up volume in an additive manufacturing build-up process, (mesh generation is a field of numerical mathematical algorithms in the mathematical subfield of geometry, specifically how to represent geometry with numerical values and schema. A person can also perform meshing by sketching grid lines on a blueprint of an object, falling within the scope of mental processes (performed with aid of pencil and paper). The link to manufacturing is recited as intended use in the preamble, and regardless amounts to merely linking the use of the exception to the technical field of additive manufacturing as per MPEP 2106.05(h). No actual manufacturing steps are claimed.)
the structure comprising at least one specimen and at least one support for supporting the at least one specimen on a boundary of the build-up volume, (details of the abstract geometry that is being meshed by mathematical methods or mental processes.)
wherein the structure mesh is usable in simulating the additive manufacturing build-up process of the structure, the method comprising: (intended use of simulation, note that the simulation here is not actually claimed as taking place, only that the mesh generated is useable by such simulations)
providing a build-up volume surface mesh that represents the boundary of the three-dimensional build-up volume; (generating a mesh of a region by mathematical algorithms or mental processes)
providing at least one specimen mesh including a specimen surface mesh representing at least an outer surface of a corresponding specimen within an interior space surrounded by the build-up volume surface mesh; (generating a further mesh of a sub-region by mathematical algorithms or mental processes)
creating a three-dimensional background mesh in a cavity between the build-up volume surface mesh and the at least one specimen surface mesh using the at least one specimen surface mesh as a seed mesh, (generating a further mesh of a sub-region by mathematical algorithms or mental processes)
wherein the three-dimensional background mesh is composed of elements consisting of background mesh nodes and background mesh edges extending between the background mesh nodes; and (constraints of the mesh generated that is well within the scope of a mathematical relationship/algorithm or that can be performed by a person mentally with aid of paper and pencil)
identifying at least one support mesh and at least one environment mesh that is defined by the background mesh except for regions of the at least one support mesh using the background mesh and surface data that describe a facetted surface of the at least one support, (this identification is done by geometric analysis of volume regions accomplished numerically according to mathematical algorithms, and a person could also perform this mentally with aid of pencil and paper)
wherein the at least one support mesh and the at least one specimen mesh together define the structure mesh that is generated such that the at least one support mesh, the at least one specimen mesh, and the at least one environment mesh are connected with each other so that two neighboring meshes share same nodes at interfaces in a transition area. (details of the mesh that the mathematical algorithm produces or that can be accomplished mentally with aid of pencil and paper).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the computer implementation) and 2) generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of 3d printing, The processor/memory/computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/memory/computer performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor/memory/computer to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-12 and 16-21 recite only further details of the mathematical algorithms used for mesh generation that fall within the scope of mathematical relationships, and can also be performed mentally with aid of pencil and paper.
Claims 13 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected under the same grounds as those set forth above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-6, 11-13, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers (US 20100228369 A1) in view of Komzsik (US 20160246908 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Eggers teaches:
generating a structure mesh of a structure that is to be built up in a three-dimensional build-up volume in an additive manufacturing build-up process, (¶3 After a coat had been polymerized, the platform descends by a single layer thickness and a subsequent layer pattern is traced, adhering to the previous layer. A complete 3-D object is formed by this process.; ¶7 it is necessary to anchor the object (i.e. the part) to a platform by means of a support to keep the object in place during the production process.; ¶71 First, a mesh is generated inside the envelope of the rapid prototyping system to which is referred as the initial mesh. The envelope of the RP system is defined as the region in which the 3-D object is built.; see also Komzsik ¶4 a finite element (FE) model of a part to be manufactured.)
the structure comprising at least one specimen and at least one support for supporting the at least one specimen on a boundary of the build-up volume, (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it. In a preferred process according to an embodiment of the present invention, all layers of the 3-D object are first Boolean subtracted from the initial mesh to form the “support” mesh. Optionally, prior to subtracting the object layer from the initial mesh, the boundary of the 3-D object may be outward offset on a layer basis to introduce spacing between the support mesh and the object.)
providing a build-up volume surface mesh that represents the boundary of the three-dimensional build-up volume; (¶17 defining the support mesh as the Boolean difference of a 3-D initial mesh, which fills up the envelope of the rapid prototyping system, and the object; ¶76 starting from the nodes that connect the support mesh to the platform of the prototyping system)
providing at least one specimen mesh including a specimen surface mesh representing at least an outer surface of a corresponding specimen within an interior space surrounded by the build-up volume surface mesh; (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it.)
creating a three-dimensional background mesh in a cavity between the build-up volume surface mesh and the at least one specimen surface mesh using the at least one specimen surface mesh as a seed mesh, (¶73 all layers of the 3-D object are first Boolean subtracted from the initial mesh to form the “support” mesh. Optionally, prior to subtracting the object layer from the initial mesh, the boundary of the 3-D object may be outward offset on a layer basis to introduce spacing between the support mesh and the object.)
wherein the three-dimensional background mesh is composed of elements consisting of background mesh nodes and background mesh edges extending between the background mesh nodes; and (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it. In a preferred process according to an embodiment of the present invention, all layers of the 3-D object are first Boolean subtracted from the initial mesh to form the “support” mesh. Optionally, prior to subtracting the object layer from the initial mesh, the boundary of the 3-D object may be outward offset on a layer basis to introduce spacing between the support mesh and the object. This spacing can be advantageous when separating the support from the object. During this process, new boundary nodes may be created.; ¶74 the object is attached to the support mesh by connecting each support point of the object to the closest node of the support mesh by means of what is referred to as a “connection” edge. Preferably, support points are only connected to closest boundary nodes.)
identifying at least one support mesh and at least one environment mesh that is defined by the background mesh except for regions of the at least one support mesh using the background mesh and surface data that describe a facetted surface of the at least one support, (¶10 software has been developed in the past to automatically design the support structures and transcribe them in STL or any other surface format which gives a description of the special structure.; examiner notes that the described features of the claim are met by the definition of an STL file as described by the reference and as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art)
wherein the at least one support mesh and the at least one specimen mesh together define the structure mesh that is generated such that the at least one support mesh, the at least one specimen mesh, and the at least one environment mesh are connected with each other so that two neighboring meshes share same nodes at interfaces in a transition area. (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it.; ¶74 the object is attached to the support mesh by connecting each support point of the object to the closest node of the support mesh by means of what is referred to as a “connection” edge. Preferably, support points are only connected to closest boundary nodes. )
Eggers does not teach in particular, but Komzsik teaches:
wherein the structure mesh is usable in simulating the additive manufacturing build-up process of the structure, the method comprising: (¶4 receiving a finite element (FE) model of a part to be manufactured. The method includes intersecting a depositing layer line with the FE model to define an FE layer mesh that represents a manufacturing layer. The method includes simulating manufacture of the FE layer mesh and correspondingly modifying the FE model)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the simulated manufacturing of Komzsik to the modeling of Eggers, in order to help improve the quality of parts fabricated by SLS and SLM by identifying faults before the part is being printed (Komzsik ¶37).
Regarding Claim 2:
Eggers teaches:
providing the at least one specimen mesh comprises providing at least one three-dimensional specimen mesh that represents a discretization not only of the surface of the at least one specimen but of the entire volume of the at least one specimen, and (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it.; ¶17 defining the support mesh as the Boolean difference of a 3-D initial mesh, which fills up the envelope of the rapid prototyping system, and the object; examiner notes that the intial mesh as described in ¶17 fills up the entirety of "the object")
creating the three-dimensional background mesh comprises discretizing the cavity with background mesh elements having a same size, shape, or size and shape as three-dimensional specimen mesh elements of the at least one three-dimensional specimen mesh; (¶70 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.; examiner notes the reference uses the qualifier "may" here, indicating it need not be done)
creating the three-dimensional background mesh comprises creating a three-dimensional background mesh having background mesh elements that are tetrahedron-shaped, pyramid-shaped, hexahedron-shaped, cuboid-shaped, or any combination thereof; or a combination thereof. (¶51 FIG. 7 a-b shows a a) 2-D and b) 3-D representation of the preferred initial mesh.; examiner notes that Fig.7b illustrates a mesh that falls within the scope of the claim language here)
Regarding Claim 3:
Eggers teaches:
wherein creating the three-dimensional background mesh comprises creating a background mesh having smaller elements in a region of the three-dimensional build-up volume where the at least one support is expected to be located, and larger elements outside the region. (¶70 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.)
Regarding Claim 4:
Eggers teaches:
wherein identifying the at least one support mesh comprises identifying surfaces of the at least one support within the background mesh, the identifying of the surfaces comprising (¶70 The location of these support points is then input in a following module, shown in FIG. 1 as module 4, which designs the 3-D support mesh. In another preferred process, 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.)
identifying points of intersection of the surfaces of the at least one support with background mesh edges, (¶80 or until all edges connected to the source nodes are found to intersect with the object. The process is then repeated for each support point, after which only those edges that are marked during this process as being part of the columnar structure are kept in the vertical columnar mesh.)
creating new nodes at the points of intersection, thus splitting the respective background mesh edges, and (¶82 Each node of the columnar structure connected to at least one edge intersecting the object is marked as a “connection” node, i.e. a node that has to be connected to the object. )
interconnecting at least some of the new nodes to create at least one support surface mesh. (¶82 Preferably, the connection node is connected to the object using one of the edges of the initial mesh connected to said connection node and intersecting with the object. In case multiple intersecting edges are attached to said connection node, preference is given to vertical edge first. In case no vertical edge is connected to the connection node, the edge that results in the shortest connection is preferred. The point where the connection edge intersects with the object is referred to as the “connection” point)
Regarding Claim 5:
Eggers does not teach in particular, but Komzsik teaches:
wherein the identified surfaces of the at least one support are surfaces of a sub-volume of the three-dimensional build-up volume that represent the at least one support as simulated in contrast to the at least one support as actually built-up in the additive manufacturing build-up process. (¶16 isclosed embodiments include systems and methods that can numerically predict the mechanical deformation of a part during SLS or SLM by applying layer, load, and thermal response data to an FEA model. Disclosed techniques allow the user to understand what locations of a part are more prone to warping, and also functions as a test bed to find the optimal support structure design to reduce warping for any arbitrarily shaped part.; examiner notes that when this simulation is applied to the support modeling of Eggers as cited above, it falls within the scope of the claim language here.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the simulated manufacturing of Komzsik to the modeling of Eggers, in order to help improve the quality of parts fabricated by SLS and SLM by identifying faults before the part is being printed (Komzsik ¶37).
Regarding Claim 6:
Eggers teaches:
wherein the sub-volume of the three-dimensional build-up volume that represents the at least one support as simulated is defined as the set of points within the three-dimensional build-up volume that are located at a distance inferior to a threshold to a closest facet of the facetted surface of the at least one support described by the surface data, (¶20 the support region of a layer of the object may be obtained by Boolean subtracting the underlying layer of said layer from said layer. Said underlying layer may be outward offset to account for the self-supporting capacity of said layer ... support points may be uniformly distributed on a inward offset boundary, such that the distance between neighboring points never exceeds a predefined distance. This distance may be defined as twice the critical overhang ... The support points in these regions are then further recursively defined. In case of a detailed support region, support points may be uniformly distributed on the skeleton of said detailed support region)
wherein the threshold is selectable as a minimal distance such that any point located in an interior of the at least one support is at most at a distance to the closest facet of the at least one support, and (¶20 such that the distance between neighboring points never exceeds a predefined distance. This distance may be defined as twice the critical overhang; examiner notes that the reference's distance falls within the scope of this limitation)
wherein a value of the distance corresponds to a value of the threshold. (¶20 such that the distance between neighboring points never exceeds a predefined distance. This distance may be defined as twice the critical overhang; examiner notes that the reference's critical overhang distance falls within the scope of this limitation)
Regarding Claim 11:
Eggers teaches:
wherein an interior of the at least one specimen defined by the at least one specimen surface mesh is meshed. (¶17 defining the support mesh as the Boolean difference of a 3-D initial mesh, which fills up the envelope of the rapid prototyping system, and the object; ¶76 starting from the nodes that connect the support mesh to the platform of the prototyping system)
Regarding Claim 12:
Eggers teaches:
wherein a support surface mesh defines a closed volume that is meshed by a volume meshing technique. (¶73 all layers of the 3-D object are first Boolean subtracted from the initial mesh to form the “support” mesh. Optionally, prior to subtracting the object layer from the initial mesh, the boundary of the 3-D object may be outward offset on a layer basis to introduce spacing between the support mesh and the object.)
Regarding Claim 13:
Eggers teaches:
the structure comprising at least one specimen and at least one support for supporting the at least one specimen on a boundary of a build-up volume, (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it. In a preferred process according to an embodiment of the present invention, all layers of the 3-D object are first Boolean subtracted from the initial mesh to form the “support” mesh. Optionally, prior to subtracting the object layer from the initial mesh, the boundary of the 3-D object may be outward offset on a layer basis to introduce spacing between the support mesh and the object. )
generation of the structure comprising provision of a build-up volume surface mesh that represents the boundary of the build-up volume, (¶17 defining the support mesh as the Boolean difference of a 3-D initial mesh, which fills up the envelope of the rapid prototyping system, and the object; ¶76 starting from the nodes that connect the support mesh to the platform of the prototyping system)
provision of at least one specimen mesh including a specimen surface mesh representing at least an outer surface of a corresponding specimen within an interior space surrounded by the build-up volume surface mesh, (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it. )
creation of a three-dimensional background mesh in a cavity between the build-up volume surface mesh and the at least one specimen surface mesh using the at least one specimen surface mesh as a seed mesh, (¶73 all layers of the 3-D object are first Boolean subtracted from the initial mesh to form the “support” mesh. Optionally, prior to subtracting the object layer from the initial mesh, the boundary of the 3-D object may be outward offset on a layer basis to introduce spacing between the support mesh and the object.)
wherein the three-dimensional background mesh is composed of elements consisting of background mesh nodes and background mesh edges extending between the background mesh nodes, and (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it. In a preferred process according to an embodiment of the present invention, all layers of the 3-D object are first Boolean subtracted from the initial mesh to form the “support” mesh. Optionally, prior to subtracting the object layer from the initial mesh, the boundary of the 3-D object may be outward offset on a layer basis to introduce spacing between the support mesh and the object. This spacing can be advantageous when separating the support from the object. During this process, new boundary nodes may be created.; ¶74 the object is attached to the support mesh by connecting each support point of the object to the closest node of the support mesh by means of what is referred to as a “connection” edge. Preferably, support points are only connected to closest boundary nodes. )
identification of at least one support mesh and at least one environment mesh that is defined by the background mesh except for regions of the at least one support mesh using the background mesh and surface data that describe a facetted surface of the at least one support, (¶10 software has been developed in the past to automatically design the support structures and transcribe them in STL or any other surface format which gives a description of the special structure.; examiner notes that the described features of the claim are met by the definition of an STL file as described by the reference and as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art)
wherein the at least one support mesh and the at least one specimen mesh together define the structure mesh that is generated such that the at least one support mesh, the at least one specimen mesh, and the at least one environment mesh are connected with each other so that two neighboring meshes share same nodes at interfaces in a transition area. (¶73 Once the initial mesh is generated, the 3-D model is connected to it.; ¶74 the object is attached to the support mesh by connecting each support point of the object to the closest node of the support mesh by means of what is referred to as a “connection” edge. Preferably, support points are only connected to closest boundary nodes. )
Eggers does not teach in particular, but Komzsik teaches:
using a structure mesh of a structure for simulating an additive manufacturing build-up process of the structure, (¶4 receiving a finite element (FE) model of a part to be manufactured. The method includes intersecting a depositing layer line with the FE model to define an FE layer mesh that represents a manufacturing layer. The method includes simulating manufacture of the FE layer mesh and correspondingly modifying the FE model)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the simulated manufacturing of Komzsik to the modeling of Eggers, in order to help improve the quality of parts fabricated by SLS and SLM by identifying faults before the part is being printed (Komzsik ¶37).
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is rejected under the same grounds as those set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Eggers teaches:
wherein the at least one support is for supporting the at least one specimen on a build-up platform that defines a lower part of the boundary of the build-up volume. (¶7 it is necessary to anchor the object (i.e. the part) to a platform by means of a support to keep the object in place during the production process. These supports also prevent the object against deformations as it is being constructed. ; ¶17 defining the support mesh as the Boolean difference of a 3-D initial mesh, which fills up the envelope of the rapid prototyping system, and the object; ¶76 starting from the nodes that connect the support mesh to the platform of the prototyping system)
Regarding Claim 17:
Eggers teaches:
wherein the region is a region defined by a geometrical bounding box that encloses the at least one support and comprises all elements thereof. (¶17 defining the support mesh as the Boolean difference of a 3-D initial mesh, which fills up the envelope of the rapid prototyping system, and the object; ¶76 starting from the nodes that connect the support mesh to the platform of the prototyping system)
Regarding Claim 21:
Eggers teaches:
wherein the interior of the at least one specimen defined by the at least one specimen surface mesh is meshed in accordance with a discretization that is extracted from existing CAD data of the at least one specimen. (¶10 The cross-sectional data representing the layer data of the 3-D object may be generated using a computer system and computer aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software … Prior to designing the support, it is preferred to convert the 3-D CAD model into layers; ¶64 The computer system may also convert the image of 3-D object into a proper format utilizing commercially available CAD software)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 requires either “an environment mesh that is an environment bubble mesh enclosed in a support mesh” which is then eliminated in the process of adjusting the support mesh, or “a support mesh that is a support bubble mesh” which is eliminated in the process of adjusting the environmental mesh. There is substantial definition of support meshes in the claim which these operate with, and this combination of limitations is important (as simply bubble meshing supports alone without the context of the other claim limitations has the potential to obvious). While bubble meshing is well known in the art, the prior art as a whole does not teach or even suggest using bubble meshing specifically for refining meshes in relation to a support mesh of a structure (or applying to a support mesh to refine an environmental mesh). See for example the Baran (US 20060017723 A1) reference, which discloses adaptive mesh refinement including for bubble meshing, but is completely silent as to 3D printing applications, let alone using bubble meshing for generating meshing of supports in a structure to be 3D printed. The Baran reference is the closest prior art. As such, when taken in combination with all other claimed elements, these features distinguish over the art as a whole.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 distinguish over the prior art by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189