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 .
Responsive to Communications on 03/02/2026
Claims 1-9, 12-14, 16-17, and 19 amended
Claims 10-11, 15, 18, and 20 are original
No claims canceled
Claims 1-20 pending
Claims 1-20 rejected
Final Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: (104) referenced in paragraph 69. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Response to Objections
Issue: Examiner has objected to Figs. 1, 2, and 7 of the drawings for allegedly failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. §1.84(p)(5). Response: Applicant amends Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and updates paragraphs 61, 63, 64, and 69, 100.Analysis: Fig 2 was objected for not including 4a. Fig 2 now includes 4a. Fig 1 was objected for not including 40, fig 1 now includes 40.Fig 2 was objected for not including 72b, fig 2 now contains 72b. Fig 2 was objected for not including 82’. Fig 2 now includes 82’. Fig 1 and 2 were objected for not including label 104 from par 69. Applicant argues that par 69 has been amended to remove label 104. Examiner notes that par 69 has not been amended in the specifications received on 03/02/2026 nor has figure 104 been added to the drawings. Conclusion: Drawings are objected due to figure 104 in the specifications missing in the drawings.
Issue: Examiner objected to par 59 for informalities. Response: Applicant amends paragraph 59. Analysis: Examiner objection pertained to typographic error in paragraph 59, applicant has corrected the error Conclusion: Examiner accepts applicant amendment to the specification and removes the objection.
Issue: Examiner objected to the abstract of the disclosure because the Abstract allegedly "does not cover the model generation method using build planning functions outlined in claims 13-20." Rule: A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Response: Applicant has amended the abstract. Analysis: Examiner confirms amended abstract now contains subject matter relevant to claims 13-20. Conclusion: Examiner accepts amended abstract and removes objection.
Issue: Claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 were objected for informalities. Response: Applicant amended the claims. Analysis: Claim 14 was objected for not introducing the terms “pre-specified data,” “toolpath variation” or “specified coordinates” into the claim. Examiner notes that the claim limitations are introduced in the amened claim. Claim 16 was objected to for not introducing the limitation “different configurations of input data” into the claim Examiner notes that the claim limitation is introduced in the amended claim. Claim 17 was objected to for a typographic error which could influence the scope of the claim. Examiner notes that the typographic error has been resolved in the amended claim. Claim 19 was objected for clarity in defining what the scope of the “templates” entailed. Examiner notes that amendment has rendered the original objection moot. Conclusion: Previous claim objections are overcome.
Response to 35 USC § 112 Rejections
Issue: Claims 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were rejected for indefiniteness. Response: Applicant amended claims. Rule: MPEP 2173.05(e) states “ A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” Analysis:
The term “some” in claim 2 which was determined to be relative terminology. Applicant has amended away the limitation.
The term “the first computerized instructions” in claim 2 was found to have insufficient antecedent basis. Applicant has amended away the limitation.
The terms “the levels” in claim 6 was found to have insufficient antecedent basis. Applicant has amended away the limitation.
The limitation "the print levels" in claim 7 was found to have insufficient antecedent basis. Applicant has amended away the limitation.
The limitation "the print levels" in claim 8 was found to have insufficient antecedent basis. Applicant has amended away the limitation.
The limitation “the second computerized instructions” in claim 9 was found to have insufficient antecedent basis. Applicant has amended away the limitation.
The limitation “a toolpath” in claim 9 was rejected due to the presence of toolpath in claim 1. Where it was not clear if they were two distinct toolpaths. Applicant usage of the term “the” in the amendment now implies that they are the same toolpath.
Conclusion: Examiner withdraws previous 112(b) rejections.
Response to 35 USC § 103 Rejections
Issue: Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 12 were rejected under 35 USC 103 under Kherat, Mark, and Bennet.
Response: Applicant has amended claim 1 to overcome prior art of Kherat, Mark, and Bennet. Applicant argues Kherat and Mark do not disclose or motivate the newly amended claim of "receive a message configured to partition the model file to print the building structure using a robotic three-dimensional ("3D") printer, [and] partition, responsive to the message, the model file into two-dimensional ("2D") cross-sections as layers ... ," Conclusion: As the scope of the claim has been changed due to amendments, new grounds of rejection may be introduced. See 103 section for rejection of claim.
Response: Applicant argues Kherat, Mark, and Bennet do not disclose or motivate the newly amended limitation of “"each of the layers having a height corresponding to a height of a printed layer or a fractional height of the printed layer that is extruded by the robotic three dimensional printer," in claim 1. Conclusion: As the scope of the claim has been changed due to amendments, new grounds of rejection may be introduced. See 103 section for rejection of claim.
Response: Applicant has further amended claim 1 to include "convert the layers into ... [a] computerized instruction specifying at least a height specified in a z dimension and a tool path having a set of tool path parameters including a first tool path parameter value specifying a direction and a second toolpath parameter value specifying a length specified in x and y-dimensions ... generate automatically adjusted information in real-time or near-real time independent of the first toolpath parameter value and the second toolpath parameter associated with data representing the model file ... , [and] apply the automatically adjustment information ... , the automatically adjustment information including a different set of toolpath parameters including [an] adjusted toolpath parameter." Applicant argues prior art of Kherat, Mark, and Bennet do not disclose, or suggest new amendments. Conclusion: As the scope of the claim has been changed due to amendments, new grounds of rejection may be introduced. See 103 section for rejection of claim.
Response: Applicant Amends Claim 1 to clarify the limitations of “transmit a third computerized instruction including [] automatically adjusted information propagated from [a] second computerized instruction to print the third printed layer including the adjustment made during the printing of the second printed layer," Applicant argues that Kherat at most discloses an “adjustment” to correct a misalignment of layers, rather than a ” "a third computerized instruction including automatically adjusted information propagated from [a] second computerized instruction to print the third printed layer." Conclusion: As the scope of the claim has been changed due to amendments, new grounds of rejection may be introduced. See 103 section for rejection of claim.
Claims 13-16 and 18-19 were rejected under 35 USC 103 over Dubov, Luckado, and Sandrine.
Response: Claim 13 has been amended. Applicant argues current prior art of Dubov, Luckado, and Sandrine do not motivate or suggest amendments. Applicant argues Dubov discloses 3D printing modules where each are 3D printed at a remote production line, transported, and then assembled. Applicant argues that these references do not teach or make obvious “"converting [a] build plan to form print layer instructions as G-code; and transmitting at least a portion of the print layer instructions to [a] robotic three-dimensional printer for printing [a] three dimensional structure, the portion of the print layer instructions being configured to control a printing assembly to extrude building material to form one or more continuous layers along a continuous path, wherein the robotic three-dimensional printer is located at a geography location, at which the three-dimensional structure is printed." Conclusion: As the scope of the claim has been changed due to amendments, new grounds of rejection may be introduced. See 103 section for rejection of claim.
End Response to Arguments
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170121959 A1 (Kherat_2017) further in view of US 20190009472 A1 (Mark_2019) , US 20170203515 A1 (Bennett_2017) and US 20190061336 A1 (Yuan_2019)
Claim 1:
Kherat_2017 makes obvious A three-dimensional print control apparatus comprising: (par 1: “a machine control system for contour crafting.” … par 2: “Contour crafting is a manufacturing process used to fabricate large-scale, three dimensional structures in a layer-by-layer manner by extruding a flowable material similar to concrete. The flowable material is extruded through an extrusion tip carried by a print head,”)
a memory device storing a model file of a building structure to be printed,(par 24: “ Memory device 204 may also be configured to store electronic data associated with the manufacturing plan, for example, details about work tool 110.” par 20: “Consistent with the present disclosure, the construction of structure 126 may be executed according to a related manufacturing plan. The manufacturing plan may include instructions with defined depositing paths for successive layers of material to be laid until construction of structure 126 is completed”( Examiner note: where electronic data associated with the manufacturing plan is interpreted as a model file) … par 19: “ The term “structure” includes any part or whole of a building.”) the model file specifying a three-dimensional representation of the building structure; (par 20: “the construction of structure 126 may be executed according to a related manufacturing plan. The manufacturing plan may include instructions with defined depositing paths for successive layers of material to be laid until construction of structure 126 is completed. The defined depositing paths may be generated based on a digital, three-dimensional model.”… par 19: “ The term “structure” includes any part or whole of a building.”)
and a control processor communicatively coupled to the memory device, (par 23: “processing device 202 may include one or more integrated circuits, microchips, microcontrollers, processors, microprocessors, all or part of a central processing unit (CPU), graphics processing unit (GPU), digital signal processor (DSP), field programmable gate array (FPGA), or other circuits suitable for executing instructions or performing logic operations” … par 24: “In some embodiments, processing device 202 may be associated with a software product stored on memory device”( Examiner note: where the processing device being associated with the software stored on memory is interpret as a processor coupled to the memory device. And the term processing device includes a control processor. See also FIG. 2.))
the control processor configured to: (par 23: “ Consistent with other embodiments of the present disclosure, processing device 202 may be part of the operating system of mobile machine 100 and may operate, ground engaging devices 106, the group of first actuators 120, and the group of second actuators 122.”)
configured to partition the model file to print the building structure using a robotic three-dimensional ("3D") printer,
par 2: “ The depositing paths are obtained by initially slicing a digital representation of the three-dimensional structure (Examiner note: partitioning a model file to print a building structure) into multiple horizontally sliced two-dimensional layers. Then, for each sliced two-dimensional layer, a path for depositing the flowable material is determined.” .. par 19: “par 19: “The digital plans and/or design files can be transformed into cross-sectional two-dimensional layers that are used to determine a manufacturing plan.” … Par 22: “The control system 200 may be used to control work tool 110 in an autonomous mode, semi-autonomous mode, or manual mode. As used herein, the autonomous mode may include operating work tool 110 automatically based upon information received from various sensors without the need for human operator input.” Examiner note: for use with a robotic 3D printer. )
partition, the model file into two-dimensional ("2D") cross-sections as layers, “par 19: The digital plans and/or design files can be transformed into cross-sectional two-dimensional layers that are used to determine a manufacturing plan.”) or a fractional height of the printed layer that is extruded (par 2: “ Contour crafting is a manufacturing process used to fabricate large-scale, three-dimensional structures in a layer-by-layer manner by extruding a flowable material similar to concrete. The flowable material is extruded through an extrusion tip carried by a print head, and deposited in a sequence of paths on a substrate in a plane. The extruded material fuses with previously deposited material, and solidifies upon a decrease in temperature. The position of the print head relative to the substrate is then incremented along a height,(Examiner note: where the height is relative to the amount of substrate excluded per layer, as in, each layer has a height corresponding to a height of the printed layer excluded by the printer) perpendicular to the plane, and the process is then repeated to form the three-dimensional structure.”
(Examiner note: examiner is mapping the claims to the first option of the “or” statement, “each layer having a height of a printer layer”)
by the robotic three-dimensional printer, (Par 22: “The control system 200 may be used to control work tool 110 in an autonomous mode, semi-autonomous mode, or manual mode. As used herein, the autonomous mode may include operating work tool 110 automatically based upon information received from various sensors without the need for human operator input.” )
convert the layers into computerized instructions for the robotic three-dimensional printer, each computerized instruction
par 19: “The digital plans and/or design files can be transformed into cross-sectional two-dimensional layers that are used to determine a manufacturing plan.” … par 20: “ Consistent with the present disclosure, the construction of structure 126 may be executed according to a related manufacturing plan. The manufacturing plan may include instructions with defined depositing paths for successive layers of material to be laid until construction of structure 126 is completed. The defined depositing paths may be generated based on a digital, three-dimensional model. “( Examiner note: where the use of layers to determine a manufacturing plan is converting the layers into computerized instructions. Where the manufacturing plan includes those instructions based on a three-dimensional modal. Where the cross sectional model being based on a three-dimensional models surely implies a x, y and z-dimension for the toolpath, as also implied by the fact that all 3d printers must inherently move in the x, y and z-dimensions when printing 3 dimensional models.)
printed layer to the robotic three- dimensional printer causing the robotic three-dimensional printer to print the first printed layer of a first print level,
par 9: “In yet another aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a computer programmable medium having executable instructions stored thereon for completing a method for controlling an additive-layers process operated by a work tool. The additive-layers process includes forming a first layer by depositing flowable material from a print head
par 9: “The additive-layers process includes forming a first layer by depositing flowable material from a print head and following a path for depositing a second layer of flowable material atop the first layer.”
receive adjustment information made by the robotic three-dimensional printer during the printing of the second printed layer of the first print level,
par 9: “The method may include obtaining, from the image data, a visible formation of the light pattern as it is projected onto the previously deposited material, and making a comparison of the visible formation of the light pattern to a predicted formation of the light pattern. (Examiner note: receiving adjustment information) The method may further include determining that the second layer is not aligned with the first layer, based on the comparison, and adjusting the path being followed by the work tool.”
generate automatically adjusted information in real-time or near-real time independent of the first toolpath parameter value and the second toolpath parameter associated with data representing the model file,
par 41: “At step 412 processing device 202 may determine if second layer 308 is aligned with first layer 306. In making this determination, processing device 202 may take into account the position of optics assembly 206 and the position of work tool 110 relative to structure 126, to calculate the geometry of the previously deposited material. Those of ordinary skill in the art of image processing will recognize that there are numerous methods for performing such calculations. Consistent with some embodiments, processing device 202 may determine that second layer 308 is not aligned with first layer 306 when a geometry of the visible formation differs from a geometry of the predicted formation by more than a predefined threshold. “ Examiner note: Where this adjustment information is received in real time and independently of toolpath parameter values, where it is received instead by an optics assembly of the real structure.
apply the automatically adjustment information to the second computerized instruction for the second printed layer of the first print level, the automatically adjustment information including a different set of toolpath parameters including the adjusted toolpath parameter,
par 42: “ At step 414 processing device 202 may adjust the path being followed by work tool 110. The adjustment of the path affects how second layer 308 is being deposited on first layer 306. In some embodiments, the adjustment of the path being followed by work tool 110 may have two parts. The first part may include bringing second layer 308 back to a point that first layer 306 substantially overlaps with second layer 308 (i.e., from point 316 to point 318). The second part may include changing the trajectory of the depositing path of second layer 308 so the two layers will remain aligned (Examiner note: a different set of toolpaths including the adjusted parameter) (i.e., from point 318 onward). In addition, once the determination is made that second layer 308 is not aligned with first layer 306, processing device 202 may further identify at least two options to adjust the path for depositing second layer 308, and use a predefined rule to select one of the options. The options to adjust the path and the pre-defined rule may be associated with the adjustment period and/or other job-related parameters. Exemplary options may include selecting the fastest option to align the two layers or selecting the smoothest option to align the two layers.”
a third computerized instruction including the automatically adjusted information propagated from the second computerized instruction to the robotic three-dimensional printer causing the robotic three-dimensional printer to print the third printed layer including the adjustment made during the printing of the second printed layer.
par 43: “The adjustment of the path being followed by work tool 110 while depositing second layer 308 atop first layer 306 may be recorded and employed in other embodiments, in one embodiment, when the additive-layers process includes forming a third layer of flowable material, processing device 202 may further determine a path for depositing the third layer atop second layer 308 based on the determination that second layer 308 is not aligned with first layer 306. “ (Examiner note: Where this is propagated information based on the second layer)
Kherat_2017 does not expressly recite receive a message
“each of the layers having a height
a set of toolpath parameters including a first toolpath parameter value specifying a direction and a second toolpath parameter value specifying a length specified in x and y-dimensions,
[transmit]
[transmit]
including an adjusted tool parameter that is
to be
[and transmit]
Bennet_2017 however makes obvious,“each of the layers having a height ((par 2: “by slicing the model into thin horizontal layers and depositing material (e.g., melted plastic, clay, concrete, metal powder, food stuff) vertically layer by layer. The layer height (thickness) is typically selected through a user interface (UI) control that allows either direct, fixed setting of layer height … produced by a well-adjusted 3D printer.”)
a set of toolpath parameters including a first toolpath parameter value specifying a direction and a second toolpath parameter value specifying a length specified in x and y-dimensions, (par 17: “The sliced layers may be viewed graphically on a display, or converted to toolpath commands used to instruct a 3D printer to create a physical manifestation of the 3D object model. “ … par 35: “In general, the computing device 110 may execute or access (via a network or via the cloud), one or more software programs or applications that take 3D object data and translate the data into instructions executable by the printer controller 117 controlling the 3D printer 105 (e.g., G-code) to enable 3D printer 105 to form 3D object 130 by extruding material onto the base 125 in multiple (e.g., separately) configurable layers” … par 36: “The 3D printer 105 may include one or more extruder assemblies 120 positioned over an object base or bed 125. The extruder assembly 120 may be moved in at least the vertical direction (z axis) (Examiner: a toolpath specifying a direction) by movement means 175, which may include one or more stepper or servo motors, as is generally known in the art. The movement means 175 may also move the extruder assembly 120 in the horizontal plane (x or y axis), (Examiner note: specifying a length in x and y-dimension) such as along the upper plate 170 relative to the base”) Examiner note: The examiner notes that any movement of any printer in the x and y dimensions includes a direction and length.
Kherat_2017, and Bennet_2017 are analogous arts as they pertain to improvements in 3d printing techniques. While Kherat_2017 deal with in situ printing of buildings, Bennet_2017 focuses on improving dimensional accuracy for 3d printing.
Bennet_2017 specifies a height of a printed layer in its invention to improve accuracy in 3d printing, this is done with specified toolpath parameters. Bennet in par 3 exemplifies how traditional methods may result in “a 12% error” due to errors in the objects z-dimensional printing. Kherat_2017 states that par 5: “Since these large-scale, three-dimensional structures are achieved using an additive processes, any small deviation may have a cumulative significant effect.” Therefore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Bennet_2017 keeping track of layer height, alongside Bennet_2017 usage of toolpath parameters, to ensure that when building a structure, the printer robot arm can be controlled through messages, and the height of the structure is as intended without error to avoid a cumulative significant effect, to achieve the claimed invention.
Bennet_2017 further makes obvious transmit [instructions]
in par 48: “ Next, in some aspects, at operation 406, the slicer may generate a tool-path command list based on the selected or determined layer height and the object model data. The tool-path command list is typically generated in the form of G-code that instructs the 3D printer in the aspects of motion, material temperature and extrusion rate, print bed temperature, and any other instructions required for a 3D printer 105 to print or generate the entire 3D object according to the determined layer height and object model data. The tool-path command list is typically stored in a file (e.g., on a computing device or removable storage media e.g., SD card) or transmitted directly to the printer.”
As stated previously, Bennet_2017 and Kherat_2017 are analogous inventions. It would have been obvious to combine the transmitting of instructions to the printer of Bennet_2017 with the receiving of instructions in Kherat_2017 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the user of Kherat_2017 when receiving instruction would have needed the instructions transmitted previously. The user of Bennet_2017 sends the instructions to the 3D printer so that it can be instructed on the motion. Therefore, it would be obvious to first transmit the movement instructions to the printer of Kherat_2017, so it could then receive the instructions and print the structure according to the proper toolpath motion.
Kherat_2017 and Bennet_2017 do not expressly recite receive a message
including an adjusted tool parameterto be]
Mark_2019 however makes obvious [receive/responsive to] a message
(“par 91: “ the print head may be mounted on a robotic arm having three, four, five, six, or higher degrees of freedom;” … par 142: “As shown in FIGS. 5A, 5B and 6, and described in further detail below, 3D printing process usually begins with a solid or three dimensional model “ … Par 165: “FIGS. 5A and 5B depicts a block diagram of a three dimensional printer system, including devices in the system and relevant databases, data structures, control messages, and file formats which cooperate to control the printers of FIGS. 1-3 and as described throughout.”).
Kherat_2017, Bennet_2017 and Mark_2019 are analogous arts to the claimed invention, as they deal with ways to improve 3d printing processes, where Kherat_2017 focuses on making real time adjustment to concrete 3d-printing, and Mark_2019 deals with real time in-process inspections for a generic 3d printer. Mark_2019 uses the control messages to control the printers of FIGS. 1-3. Kherat_2017 does the same steps to accomplish the goals of controlling the printers, but does not explicitly state sending a message to do so. Instead Kherat_2017 makes this Moreso explicit when a user intends to take over the printing manually. Therefore It would have been obvious of one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use control messages to control the printers of Kherat_2017, as kherat_2017 already uses messages for a different purpose to control printers like Mark_2019 to achieve the invention as specified in the claims.
Kherat_2017, Bennet_2017 and Mark_2019 do not expressly recite including an adjusted tool parameterto be]
Yuan_2019, however, makes obvious including an adjusted tool parameterto be] par 31: “Advantageously, user may generate the adjustment signal through the voice in one embodiment of the invention, a voice signal generated by the user may be received through an audio input (e.g., a microphone) of the 3D printing apparatus 100 and be transferred to the adjustment signal by the controller 150 using technologies such as semantic analysis. In one embodiment, for supporting the function of voice control, the storage device 130 stores a database that records, for example, multiple nouns and the printing parameter corresponding to each noun. As per each of the nouns, the database records multiple verbs and the adjustment behavior corresponding to each verb.) Examiner note: Where this is a user sending adjustment printer parameter information to a 3d printer directly
Kherat_2017, Bennet_2017, Mark_2019 and Yuan_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3d printing. Where Yuan_2019 discusses adjustments made during 3d printing.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kherat_2017, Bennet_2017, Mark_2019 and Yuan_2019.
The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the art. Yuan_2019 states par 44: “Accordingly, convenience and flexibility of 3D printing can be improved. For instance, a portion of an object to be printed has a larger cross-sectional area, while another portion of the object has a smaller cross-sectional area. Therefore, the print head can heat the laminated material to a higher temperature when printing the portion having the larger cross-sectional area, and heat the laminated material to a lower temperature when printing the portion having the smaller cross-sectional area. Thus, the printing quality can be well-controlled. Additionally, the function of voice control is provided in one embodiment of the invention. By using the function of voice control, the users may conveniently and real-time adjust the printing parameters during the printing procedure as desired.” When using the combined invention of Kherat_2017, Bennet_2017, and Mark_2019, a user would be motivated to allow the direct receiving of adjusted tool parameters for adjustments to be made, to allow a user convenience and flexibility and determining what adjustments a user would like to be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the in situ concrete building process of Kherat_2017, Bennet_2017, and Mark_2019 with the input of printing parameters as real time adjustment information of Yuan_2019 for the benefit of improving user convenience and flexibility when printing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2:The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the automatically adjustment information is received from
Kherat_2017 makes obvious an interface device or from the robotic three-dimensional printer and corresponds to a manual change that causes the robotic three-dimensional printer to deviate from the first computerized instruction in a subset of first computerized instructions.
par 7: “The system may further include an optics assembly mounted to the work tool and configured to produce a light pattern directed toward previously deposited material. The system may also include a camera configured to capture image data of the previously deposited material. The system may further include a processing device in communication with the optics assembly and the camera. The processing device may be configured to obtain, from the image data, a visible formation of the light pattern as it is projected onto the previously deposited material, and make a comparison of the visible formation of the light pattern to a predicted formation. The processing device may further be configured to make a determination that the second layer is not aligned with the first layer, based on the comparison, and make an adjustment of the path being followed by the work tool based on the determination.”… par 22 “The control system 200 may be used to control work tool 110 in an autonomous mode, semi-autonomous mode, or manual mode … the manual mode is one in which an operator is controlling all or essentially all of the direction, speed and manipulating functions of work tool 110. … par 23: “Operation of work tool 110, in any of the above referenced modes, may be executed by processing device 202.”) Examiner note: Where when using the manual mode as recited, the adjustment information received from the interface device will correspond to the manual change that caused the robotic three-dimensional printer to deviate from at least some of the first computerized instructions.
Claim 3:The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the automatically adjustment information includes
Kherat_2017 makes obvious a change to at least one of the height of the first print level, the at least one toolpath parameter value in the set of toolpath parameters of the first printed layer, or the height of the first printed layer.
par 9: “The method may include obtaining, from the image data, a visible formation of the light pattern as it is projected onto the previously deposited material, and making a comparison of the visible formation of the light pattern to a predicted formation of the light pattern. (Examiner note: where this comparison is receiving adjustment information indicative of an adjustment made by the 3d printer). … par 31: “. Examples of information that may be used to determine the predicted pattern include the manufacturing plan, dimensions of each printed layer, operational details of work tool 110, and more.” … examiner note: wherein fig 3A-3H depicts the comparisons as misalignments in the dimensions which would be caused by changes in a toolpath, with 3I showing a clear toolpath change.
Claim 4:The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the control processor is configured to
Kherat_2017 makes obvious apply the automatically adjustment information to remaining computerized instructions for the first print level. (par 9:” the present disclosure is directed to a computer programmable medium having executable instructions stored thereon for completing a method for controlling an additive-layers process operated by a work tool” … “The method may further include determining that the second layer is not aligned with the first layer, based on the comparison, and adjusting the path being followed by the work tool.” Examiner note: (Where Fig.2. shows the actuators as being controlled by the processing device which as stated previously encompasses a control processer. Where the first print level is interpreted as the levels following the same toolpath, and adjusting a path for the second layer is the same as applying the adjustment information to the remaining instructions to the first print level since the first print level is only required to be one layer.)
Claim 5:
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the control processor is configured to
Kherat_2017 makes obvious apply the automatically adjustment information to remaining computerized instructions derived from the layers that are to be printed on top of the first printed layer. Kherat_2017 par 9: “the present disclosure is directed to a computer programmable medium having executable instructions stored thereon for completing a method for controlling an additive-layers process operated by a work tool” … par 43: “The adjustment of the path being followed by work tool 110 while depositing second layer 308 atop first layer 306 may be recorded and employed in other embodiments, in one embodiment, when the additive-layers process includes forming a third layer of flowable material, processing device 202 may further determine a path for depositing the third layer atop second layer 308 based on the determination that second layer 308 is not aligned with first layer 306”
Examiner note: (Where Fig.2. shows the actuators as being controlled by the processing device which as stated previously encompasses a control processer. Where the first print level is interpreted as the levels following the same toolpath, and adjusting a path for the second layer is the same as applying the adjustment information to the remaining instructions to the first print level since the first print level is only required to be one layer.)
Claim 7:The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the set of toolpath parameters include
Kherat_2017 does not expressly recite a print start location and a print finish location as a third toolpath parameter value and a fourth toolpath parameter value, respectively.
Mark_2019 however, makes obvious a print start location and a print finish location as a third toolpath parameter value and a fourth toolpath parameter value, respectively.
par 176: “As shown in FIGS. 5A, 5B and 6, slicing operations identify and use toolpaths to surround exterior and interior lateral walls (e.g., optionally 1-3 fused polymer rows at each); fill interior volumes with dense, packed, sparse, cellular or lattice structures; form ceilings, floors, and roofs optionally with slower print speeds; and create temporary, removable or soluble support structures used during the print cycle. In addition, toolpaths for moving tools from origin to print start to print stop, and for feeding and retracting filament to start and stop extrusion, are created.”
As already discussed, Mark_2019, Kherat_2017, and Bennet_2017 are analogous arts. Mark_2019 deals with process inspections and layer customization, such as stated par 176: “ fill interior volumes with dense, packed, sparse, cellular or lattice structures; form ceilings, floors, and roofs optionally with slower print speeds; and create temporary, removable or soluble support structures used during the print cycle. In addition, toolpaths for moving tools from origin to print start to print stop, and for feeding and retracting filament to start and stop extrusion, are created.” It is likely that when building a concrete structure for a building as outlined in Kherat_2017, that the user would like to also use these customizable configurations, so that they could also take advantage of customizations. For example, slower printing speeds for the floors of the house to provide better structure, or the use of support structures when building a home. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to combine the 3d building construction system of kherat_2017 with the usage of start/stop parameters of Mark_2019 for providing customizable configurations.
Claim 8:The apparatus of Claim 7, wherein the set of toolpath parameters include
Mark_2019 makes obvious a print start pause location and a print finish pause location as a fifth toolpath parameter value and a sixth toolpath parameter value, respectively.
Par 140: “Optionally, the internal or external processor monitors the boundary shape 29-3 and transmits a signal to change a toolpath 29-2 when a threshold representative of the boundary shape 29-3 is crossed. The signal is optionally to pause deposition of a printing material shell so that printing out of specification may be stopped, inspected, adjusted, and either resumed or restarted, but may be a signal which adjusts printing or slicing parameters (or toolpaths) in addition to or in alternative to pausing. In other words, the toolpaths 29-2 may be altered—during the same printing session or for a subsequent printing session—to deposit printed material differently such that the deposited material fits within the boundary shape” Examiner notes: where fitting within the boundary shape reads on the claim, where the deposited material has a start pause and finish pause around the boundary for at least one level, see also … par 176: “In addition, toolpaths for moving tools from origin to print start to print stop, and for feeding and retracting filament to start and stop extrusion, are created.” Examiner note: which uses different language but also described a start pause and start finish location so that certain areas do not have material extruded to them.
As already stated, Kherat_2017 and Mark_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called in situ printing adjustment. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kherat_2017 and Mark_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a motivation proposed in the art. Mark_2019 states par 140: “The signal is optionally to pause deposition of a printing material shell so that printing out of specification may be stopped, inspected, adjusted, and either resumed or restarted, “ When in situ printing with the invention of Kherat_2017, the user of Kherat_2017 would be motivated to have a pause printing location to ensure that the printing can be inspected, or adjusted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the printing of Kherat_2017 with start pause locations of Mark_2019 for the benefit of allowing inspections and adjustment to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 9:
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the first computerized instruction and the second computerized instruction
Kherat_2017 does not expressly recite include G-code for the toolpath for the robotic three-dimensional printer.
Mark_2017 however makes obvious include G-code for the toolpath for the robotic three-dimensional printer. Par 87: “In the present disclosure, “3D printer” is inclusive of both discrete printers and/or toolhead accessories to manufacturing machinery which carry out an additive manufacturing sub-process within a larger process. With reference to FIGS. 1-5, 3D printer is controlled by a motion controller 20 which interprets dedicated G-code 1102 and drives various actuators of the 3D printer in accordance with the G-code “
As already discussed, Kherat_2017, and Mark_2017 are analogous inventions. See Kherat_2017 par 17: “par 17: “ Work tool 110 may be positioned and/or otherwise moved using a plurality of actuators.” It would have been obvious to use G-code as outlined in Mark_2017 to drive the actuators of the 3D printer of Kherat_2017, in accordance to a toolpath before the effective filing date, since Mark_2017 also moves the robot arms to drive the actuators in accordance to a toolpath, and using G-code is a well understood way of doing so. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to combine the 3d printer system of Kherat_2017 which uses actuators with the known way of moving said actuators through G-code of mark_2017 for the predictable result of controlling a toolpath with actuators using G-code.
Claim 10:The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the model file includes
Kherat_2017 makes obvious at least one of a two- dimensional or a three-dimensional digital representation of the building structure.
Par 19: “In some embodiments, work tool 110 may be an additive construction device (e.g., an extruder) that includes a print head 124 configured to deposit flowable material for constructing a structure 126 by laying down successive layers of the flowable material. The term “structure” includes any part or whole of a building. … par 20 :” Consistent with the present disclosure, the construction of structure 126 may be executed according to a related manufacturing plan. The manufacturing plan may include instructions with defined depositing paths for successive layers of material to be laid until construction of structure 126 is completed. The defined depositing paths may be generated based on a digital, three-dimensional model.”
Claim 12:
The apparatus of Claim 1,
Kherat_2017 does not expressly recite wherein the control processor partitions the model file by creating two-dimensional ("2D") cross-sections for the layers at different heights.
Bennet_2017 however makes obvious wherein the control processor partitions the model file by creating two-dimensional ("2D") cross-sections for the layers at different heights. Par 22: “e) Slice: refers to a single, typically vertical, cross-sectional layer of a 3D object model. [0023] f) Slicer: a software program that converts a 3D object model into a collection of sliced layers of one or more layer heights.” … par 84: “ Each of the processes, methods and algorithms described in the preceding sections may be embodied in, and fully or partially automated by, code modules executed by one or more computers or computer processors.”
Where the motivation to combine the analogous arts of Bennet_2017, Mark_2019, and Kherat_2017 before the effective filing date has already been discussed in claim 1, which is to produce a more accurate building product.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kherat_2017 Mark_2019, Bennett_2017, Yuan_2019 and in further view of US 20220055247 A1 (Petit_2019).
Claim 6:The apparatus of Claim 1,
Kherat_2017 , Bennet_2017, Mark_2019 , and Yuan_2019 do not expressly recite wherein the height of each layer is between 0.5 inches and 2 inches for printing concrete and the height of the first printed level and subsequent printed levels is between 2 inches and fifty feet.
Petite_2019 however, makes obvious wherein the height of each layer is between 0.5 inches and 2 inches for printing concrete and the height of the first printed level and subsequent printed levels is between 2 inches and fifty feet.
Petit_2019 par 2 : “Additive manufacturing of concrete exists since the 80'. There are four types of additives manufacturing of concrete, the contour crafting method which is the most widely used method” … par 3: “As its name suggests, the contour crafting method extrudes mortar filaments (fine materials <4 mm) in successive thin layers and typically limited in height from few mm to 2-4 cm. “ Examiner note: this reference is teaching the background of the art. Where the height of 4 cm is between 0.5 inches and 2 inches. … par 5: “Since the hardening speed of the concrete is very low, this leads to a fabrication of single columns of 2 m in not less than 4-5 hours.” Examiner note: where a full column can be interpreted as a column level, and 2 meters is between 2 inches and 50 feet.
Petite_2019 is analogous art to the claimed invention as well as Kherat_2017 Mark_2019, Bennett_2017 and Yuan_2019, since Petite_2019 also discusses improvements to 3d printing and specifically to concrete additive manufacturing techniques. Petite_2019 outlines that the common height range used in the art can be 4cm, which is within 0.5 to 2 inches. It would have been obvious to combine these prior art elements for one of one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to choose the height of a level for concrete additive manufacturing, to choose the common and typical height when contour crafting as outlined by Kherat_2017. It is noted since a level is abstract, taking two layers of kherat_2017 of 4 cm each (Kherat_2019 par 9: “forming a first layer by depositing flowable material from a print head and following a path for depositing a second layer of flowable material atop the first layer. “) where two layers deposited on top of each other given a typical layer height would create a level height of 8cm. Furthermore, a column of 2 meters can also be interpreted as a level which is within the range given.
Claim 11:Kherat_2017 heavily implies The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the building structure includes at least one of a residential structure, a commercial structure, a government structure, a garage, a storage shed, a warehouse, utility lines, a wall, a tunnel, a launch pad, furniture, or a landscaping element.
par 19 “In some embodiments, work tool 110 may be an additive construction device (e.g., an extruder) that includes a print head 124 configured to deposit flowable material for constructing a structure 126 by laying down successive layers of the flowable material. The term “structure” includes any part or whole of a building.”
However, Kherat_2017 does not explicitly recite any of these specific structures. Petit_2019 makes obvious at least one of these structures (par 1: “The present invention relates to an apparatus for fabricating a 3-dimensional concrete structure,”… “, it relates to an additive manufacturing method and apparatus of concrete structure for producing 3-dimensional concrete structures”… par 21: “According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the guiding surface is pivotably mounted to as be able to pivot along a vertical axis and/or a horizontal axis. In this manner, the projection head can create curved walls.”).
As stated previously, petit_2019 and Kherat_2017 are analogous and related arts and it would have been reasonable for one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the two references to produce a result. Kherat_2017 teaches making any part or whole of a building. Petit_2019 teaches explicitly making a wall. A wall is one of the building structures listed in the claimed invention. It would have been obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to use Kherat_2017 invention of making any part or whole of a building, to create a wall as taught by petit_2017 since a wall may be part of a building and any device capable of creating buildings should also be capable of creating a wall.
Claims 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200387138 A1 (Dubov_2020), and “An Austin startup can 3D-print tiny homes in 24 hours for a fraction of the cost of traditional homebuilding — here's how Icon could revolutionize affordable housing” (Canales_2019)
Claim 13:
Dubov_2020 makes obvious The model generation method for printing three-dimensional structures, the method comprising: (Par 4: “In general, one innovative aspect of the subject described in this specification can be embodied in systems, computer readable media, and methods that include operations for determining a suitable building layout for a property … Based on a selected building layout, instructions are generated and transmitted to an automated production line comprising a 3D printing process to produce one or more building structures based on the selected building layout.”)
receiving, in a build processor, (par 22: “A computer system may include a processor, a memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium”) a selection of a build planning function among a plurality of build planning functions stored in a memory device to form a selected build planning function for printing a three-dimensional structure (par 58: “The system 100 allows for various modes of selecting or automatically suggesting suitable building layouts for the property. A suitable building layout is a model representing a 3D printed structure that may be printed and installed on the property in an available building envelope. A suitable building layout is graphically represented in the user interface 300 by a suitable building footprint 310. The suitable building footprint is a proposed footprint of a new structure. A suitable building footprint corresponds to the size and the location on the property where the new 3D printed building structure is to be installed or placed.”)
the selected build planning function including one or more templates associated with one or more data structures, each data structure defining a range of acceptable parameter values; (par 90: “The system 100 may optionally select a set of building modules for presentation, (Examiner note: templates) via a user interface, to a user based on user-defined requirements (1010). For example, the system 100 may receive user input defining parameters for the overall dimension of an assembled building such as width and length, total square feet, etc. (Examiner note: where these parameter values are understood as being within a range) Also, the system 100 may receive user input defining the particular parameters for an individual building module. Based on the user-defined requirements, the system 100 may retrieve and present to the user those particular building modules that qualify or meet the user's requirements. For example, if the overall building footprint must fit within a 30-foot by 30-foot square area, then the system 100 would preclude and not present to the user those building modules that exceed 30 ft in its length or width.) (Examiner note: This is an acceptable range of 0-30ft)
determining, via the build processor, global build data associated with the selected build planning function, the global build data includes one or more rules for constructing the three- dimensional structure based one or more parameter values; (par 90-91: “Based on the user-defined requirements, the system 100 may retrieve and present to the user those particular building modules that qualify or meet the user's requirements. For example, if the overall building footprint must fit within a 30-foot by 30-foot square area, then the system 100 would preclude and not present to the user those building modules that exceed 30 ft in its length or width. This functionality allows a user to customize the size and shape of the individual building modules (e.g., a bathroom, living room, bedroom, utility room, garage, dining room, kitchen, storage room, etc.) for the assembled building layout. For example, the system 100 may receive a user input for desired dimensions of a living room and bedroom. Based on the desired dimensions, the system 100 may retrieve and present to the user, via the user interface, those particular building modules that qualify or meet the user's requirements. In this case, the system 100 would only present living room and bedroom modules that meet the dimensional requirements as set by the user.”)
causing the build processor to generate a prompt for a user to the one or more input parameters for the one or more rules of the global build data that include one or more of, site/location data, building code requirements, owner preferences, and builder preferences, the one or more input parameters associated with one or more ranges of the acceptable parameter values; (par 90: “The system 100 may optionally select a set of building modules for presentation, via a user interface, to a user based on user-defined requirements (1010). For example, the system 100 may receive user input defining parameters for the overall dimension of an assembled building such as width and length, total square feet, etc Also, the system 100 may receive user input defining the particular parameters for an individual building module. Based on the user-defined requirements, the system 100 may retrieve and present to the user those particular building modules that qualify or meet the user's requirements. For example, if the overall building footprint must fit within a 30-foot by 30-foot square area, then the system 100 would preclude and not present to the user those building modules that exceed 30 ft in its length or width.) Examiner note: Where this is considered an owner preference.
creating a build plan using, via the build processor, the build planning function, the global build data, and the one or more input parameters the build plan having a list of actions for a robotic three-dimensional printer; (par 82: “ Also, the system 100 may generate instructions (Examiner note: list of actions) to print the suitable building layout and/or modules that form the suitable building layout. For example, a suitable building layout (and its component building modules) (Examiner note: this is using the build planning function/global build data/input parameters, see mapping above) might be produced using a Large Scale Additive Manufacturing method such as 3D printing in an automated production line where successive layers of materials are laid down in a manner to create different structures.”)
converting the build plan to form print layer instructions as G-code; (Par 83: “The system 100 may generate an electronic package of one or more electronical files for transmission to one or more 3D printers for printing of the structures. The system 100 may create files for a completed building layout and/or individual building modules of a building layout. For example, the system 100 may create files in a format used for 3D printing (e.g., .obj files (very common format for 3D printing), .STL files (STereoLithography), .gcode for G-code data files, VRML (Virtual Reality Modelling Language) files, .3MF files (an XML-based format used by Microsoft), .X3G files (a proprietary format used by Makerbot), .AMF files (Additive Manufacturing File Format—an XLM-based open standard format), .FBX files (used by Autodesk), and/or .PLY files (Polygon File Format)).”)
and transmitting at least a portion of the print layer instructions to the robotic three-dimensional printer for printing the three-dimensional structure, the portion of the print layer instructions being configured to control a printing assembly to extrude building material to form one or more continuous layers along a continuous path,
(par 82: “ Also, the system 100 may generate instructions to print the suitable building layout and/or modules that form the suitable building layout. For example, a suitable building layout (and its component building modules) might be produced using a Large Scale Additive Manufacturing method such as 3D printing in an automated production line where successive layers of materials are laid down in a manner to create different structures.”) (Examiner note: Configured to control printing assembly to exude building materials in one or more layers along a continuous paths. See also “additive manufacturing method … 3D printing” and “g-code” which imply the step as well.)
… Par 83: “The system 100 may generate an electronic package of one or more electronical files for transmission to one or more 3D printers for printing of the structures. The system 100 may create files for a completed building layout and/or individual building modules of a building layout. For example, the system 100 may create files in a format used for 3D printing (e.g., .obj files (very common format for 3D printing), .STL files (STereoLithography), .gcode for G-code data files, VRML (Virtual Reality Modelling Language) files, .3MF files (an XML-based format used by Microsoft), .X3G files (a proprietary format used by Makerbot), .AMF files (Additive Manufacturing File Format—an XLM-based open standard format), .FBX files (used by Autodesk), and/or .PLY files (Polygon File Format)).”
wherein the robotic three-dimensional printer (… Par 83: “The system 100 may generate an electronic package of one or more electronical files for transmission to one or more 3D printers for printing of the structures. )
While Dubov_2020 implies is located at a geography location, at which the three-dimensional structure is printed. (par 82: “Also, the system 100 may generate instructions to print the suitable building layout and/or modules that form the suitable building layout. For example, a suitable building layout (and its component building modules) might be produced using a Large Scale Additive Manufacturing method such as 3D printing in an automated production line where successive layers of materials are laid down in a manner to create different structures. The size of a component building module may be limited to the maximum printable area of the 3D printer. For off-site manufacturing, the maximum size of a printed structure might also be restricted to the limitations of transportation capabilities.”)
Examiner note: Where the usage of “for” implies that this is optional. Where if the manufacturing is not off-site, then it certainly is on-site.
Dubov_2020 does not expressly recite is located at a geography location, at which the three-dimensional structure is printed.
Canales_2019 however makes obvious is located at a geography location, at which the three-dimensional structure is printed. (page 2: Icon is an Austin startup that designs 3D-printing technology capable of building tiny homes in about a day for a fraction of the cost of traditional construction methods. Icon cofounder Evan Loomis told Business Insider that pinpointing an exact cost estimate is tricky, but the company successfully printed a 350-square-foot proof-of-concept home for $10,000 in 24 hours in 2018. The company isn't the first to design 3D printing technology for home building, but its unique customization and on-site construction could be revolutionary feats amid a growing demand in the US for affordable housing.)
Dubov_2020 and Canales_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D printing construction. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dubov_2020 and Canales_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art of Dubov_2020 teaches a method for building custom building structures through additive manufacturing, by sending instructions to a 3D printer to build the components. The prior art of Canales_2019 prints costume 3D building structures on site at the geographical location. Each element of Dubov_2020 and Canales_2019 performs the same function of printing a custom building, with the only difference being the location that the building is built. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the elements perform the same functions as they do separately and would be combinable through known methods to print the building at the location required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine custom design and home printing workflow of Dubov_2020 with on-site construction of Canales_2019 for the predictable result of printing a home at its geographic location to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 14:The method of Claim 13,
Dubov_2020 makes obvious wherein the build plan includes placement once information, placement level information, a parametric build function that specifies a printing action based on a pre-specified data, or a transform function that specifies a toolpath variation based on one or more specified coordinates. ((Par 4: “A location for the placement of a suitable building footprint within the building envelope is determined and the building footprint displayed within the building envelope. A building layout is determined that fits within the building envelope. Based on a selected building layout, instructions are generated and transmitted to an automated production line comprising a 3D printing process to produce one or more building structures based on the selected building layout.” .. par 98: “While customizing the assembled building layout the user may select from different building modules. However, in some cases a selection of one building module of one type may preclude the selection of a building module of another type. This may be due to the particular configuration of the first selected building module type. For example, a building module may have a pre-defined placement of doors, windows or other structures”) Examiner note: Where these are interpreted as examples of placement once information.
Claim 15:
Dubov_2020 makes obvious The method of Claim 13, wherein the plurality of build planning functions includes build planning functions for at least one of a residential structure, a commercial structure, a government structure, a garage, a storage shed, a warehouse, utility lines, a wall, a tunnel, a launch pad, furniture, or a landscaping element.
Par 32: “Current Use—is an allowed type of use for the tract, such as commercial, administrative, residential or industrial. This value is typically indicated as alpha-numeric.” (Examiner note: where zoning data including residential current use shows that it includes a residential build function. )See also Par 78: “Building layout 610A is an I-shaped structure with a total of 538 square feet. Building layout 610A includes a 73 sq. ft. bathroom, a 191 sq. ft. kitchen & living space, and a 191 sq. ft. bedroom with a wardrobe space of 83 sq. ft.” (Examiner note: where a building with a bathroom, kitchen, bedroom, and living space is also a residential structure. )
Claim 16:
The method of Claim 13,
Dubov_2020 makes obvious wherein each of the plurality of build planning functions is associated with different configurations of an input data. (Par 77: “The system 100 generates user interface 600 and displays one or more suitable building layouts based on a chosen suitable building footprint. For example, the user interface 300 of FIG. 3 may display the user interface 600 when a user double clicks with a mouse input device on a suitable building footprint 310, or via some other method (e.g., a menu selection). In this example, the user interface 600 depicts three possible building layouts 610A, 610B and 610C that are available for the previously selected suitable building footprint.”)
Claim 18:Dubov_2020 makes obvious The method of Claim 13, wherein prompting includes providing, via the building processor par 22: “ A computer system may include a processor, a memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium.”), a selection of a template from a plurality of templates, (Par 77: “The system 100 generates user interface 600 and displays one or more suitable building layouts (Examiner note: where the building layouts are templates) based on a chosen suitable building footprint. For example, the user interface 300 of FIG. 3 may display the user interface 600 when a user double clicks with a mouse input device on a suitable building footprint 310, or via some other method (e.g., a menu selection). In this example, the user interface 600 depicts three possible building layouts 610A, 610B and 610C that are available for the previously selected suitable building footprint.”) each template including a data structure having variable parameter references provided by the user to specify the respective parameter. (par 90-91: “ The system 100 may optionally select a set of building modules for presentation, via a user interface, to a user based on user-defined requirements (1010). For example, the system 100 may receive user input defining parameters for the overall dimension of an assembled building such as width and length, total square feet, (Examiner note: where these parameters are considered as variable parameters) etc. Also, the system 100 may receive user input defining the particular parameters for an individual building module. Based on the user-defined requirements, the system 100 may retrieve and present to the user those particular building modules that qualify or meet the user's requirements. For example, if the overall building footprint must fit within a 30-foot by 30-foot square area, then the system 100 would preclude and not present to the user those building modules that exceed 30 ft in its length or width. This functionality allows a user to customize the size and shape of the individual building modules (e.g., a bathroom, living room, bedroom, utility room, garage, dining room, kitchen, storage room, etc.) for the assembled building layout.” ) Examiner note: Where the building module corresponds to a template of a room, and the building layout corresponds to a template of the building.
Claim 19:The method of Claim 18, wherein the one or more input parameters include the one or more of the site/location data, the code requirements, the owner preferences, and the builder preferences.
par 90: “The system 100 may optionally select a set of building modules for presentation, via a user interface, to a user based on user-defined requirements (1010). For example, the system 100 may receive user input defining parameters for the overall dimension of an assembled building such as width and length, total square feet, etc Also, the system 100 may receive user input defining the particular parameters for an individual building module. Based on the user-defined requirements, the system 100 may retrieve and present to the user those particular building modules that qualify or meet the user's requirements. For example, if the overall building footprint must fit within a 30-foot by 30-foot square area, then the system 100 would preclude and not present to the user those building modules that exceed 30 ft in its length or width.) Examiner note: Where this is considered an owner preference.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubov_2020, Canales_2019, and further in view of “California Building Climate Zones” (California_2017)
Claim 17:
The method of Claim 13,
Dubov_2020 makes obvious wherein the global build data includes at least one of standard
Par 29: “The zoning data 110 includes information and data that may be used to determine pre-existing building structures, property boundaries and other zoning requirements for building additional structures or enhancing pre-existing structures on a property. Exemplary zoning data may include, but is not limited to the following:”
Dubov_2020 does not expressly recite wherein [zoning data includes]
California_2017 makes obvious wherein [zoning data includes] (page 1 par 1: “Building Climates Zones of California Climate Zone Descriptions for New Buildings - California is divided into 16 climatic boundaries or climate zones, which is incorporated into the Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code). Each Climate zone has a unique climatic condition that dictates which minimum efficiency requirements are needed for that specific climate zone.“)
Dubov_2020, Canales_2019 and California_2017 are analogous arts as they all deal with real estate building and planning. Dubov_2020 teaches following zone data to determine the “zoning requirements for building additional structures.” One such example of a zoning requirement for building additional structures is climate zone data which is required when building structures in places such as California. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include climate zone data when considering zone data under Dubov_2020 invention, as it is a zoning requirement for building structures in places such as California.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubov_2020, Canales_2019, and further in view of Kherat_2017
Claim 20:
The method of Claim 13,
Dubov_2020 does not expressly recite wherein the build plan includes a transfer function that changes a toolpath based on at least one of a timestamp when the printing is performed, live data from an Internet feed, or a locally-connected sensor.
Kherat_2017 makes obvious wherein the build plan includes a transfer function that changes a toolpath based on at least one of a timestamp when the printing is performed, live data from an Internet feed, or a locally-connected sensor. (par 7: “The system may further include an optics assembly mounted to the work tool (Examiner note: a locally-connected sensor) and configured to produce a light pattern directed toward previously deposited material. The system may also include a camera configured to capture image data of the previously deposited material. The system may further include a processing device in communication with the optics assembly and the camera. The processing device may be configured to obtain, from the image data, a visible formation of the light pattern as it is projected onto the previously deposited material, and make a comparison of the visible formation of the light pattern to a predicted formation. The processing device may further be configured to make a determination that the second layer is not aligned with the first layer, based on the comparison, and make an adjustment of the path being followed by the work tool (Examiner note: a change in toolpath) based on the determination.”)
Dubov_2020 and Kherat_2017 are analogous arts, as they both deal with 3d printing concrete structures. Where Dubov_2020 deals with the planning process, and Kherat_2017 focuses on the printing process.
Kherat_2017 teaches changing the toolpath in order to create a more accurate building structure.( Par 41: “The value of the predefined threshold may be set by the operator using user input 210, and may be job specific. For example, some structures may require a high level of accuracy and, thus, the predefined threshold may be set very low (e.g., D1<0.5 mm). Whereas, other structures may require a lesser level of accuracy and the predefined threshold may be set higher (e.g., D1<15 mm).”) After modeling the home using the program of Dubov_2020, it is sent to a 3-D printer to be printed. (Par 3: “The 3D printed structure may be printed using Large Scale Additive Manufacturing methods.” Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the invention of Dubo_2020 to make building layouts to send to a printer for Large Scale Additive Manufacturing, with Kherat_2017 teaching of improving Large Scale Additive Manufacturing through adjustment printing, in order to improve the accuracy of the final product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights