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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, made in the previous Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11 – 14, 18, 20, 26, 33, 34, 41 are allowable.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 26 are persuasive. Therefore claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11 – 14, 18, 20, 26, 33, 34, 41 are allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21 – 22, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis et al. US 2013/0329258 (hereinafter Pettis) in view of Ross US 2018/0250100 (hereinafter Ross) and in view of Wiens US 5,808,894 (hereinafter Wiens).
Regarding claim 21, Pettis teaches: a method for controlling production orders, comprising the steps:
a) Establishing a data connection between a server and an order computer located distanced from the server at an orderer location (Fig. 2, [0043] - - web servers; Client devices are order computers);
b) Sending an order data package, which contains geometric information ([0047] - - the web server receives a print job from a remote user; the print job is an order data package; [0048] - - 3D models);
c) Establishing a data connection between the server and a production planning computer located distanced from the server at a production planning location ([0043] - - the print server is a production planning computer; [0030] - - printer server receives print jobs);
d) Sending the received order data package from the server to the production planning computer ([0030] - - printer server receives print jobs);
e) Sending a production data package, which contains geometric and production flow controlling information for the production of one or more medical products ([0047] - - print queue data is production flow control information) wherein the production data package was created in dependence on the order data package, and was sent from the production planning computer to the server ([0063] - - prepares machine-ready models based on the 3D model),;
f) Establishing a data connection between a server and a production control computer located at a production location distanced from the server ([0043] - - the print server is a production planning computer);
g) Sending
o a device data package, which contains information about a production device controlled by the production control computer ([0047] - - print server receive status information from 3D printers),
o and a status data package, which contains information about material to be processed with the production device ([0062] - - build material requirements; [0066] - - a printer have ability to select building materials) and/or information about the operating status of the production device from the production control computer and/or from the production device controlled by the production control computer to the server ([0047] - - receive status information from 3D printers);
h) Sending the production data package to the production control computer, which controls the production device that is specified in the address information about a production device in the production data package ([0044] - - the server determines a location of the mobile device initiating the print job and locate a closest printer for fabrication of the object).
But Pettis does not explicitly teach:
geometric anatomical information of a patient,
However, Ross teaches:
geometric anatomical information of a patient ([0061] - - data generated using a digital impression scanner);
Pettis and Ross are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Pettis, and incorporating forming an oral apparatus using a 3D printer, as taught by Ross.
But the combination of Pettis and Ross does not explicitly teach:
address information about the order computer,
However, Wiens teaches:
address information about the order computer (C5, L56-60 - - transmission of the customer name, address & etc. C6, L30-35 - - identify which of a plurality of different ordering facilities of a customer has initiated the order),
Pettis, Ross and Wiens are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to ordering system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above server, as taught by the combination of Pettis and Ross, and incorporating address information about the order computer, as taught by Wiens.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve handling customer information, as suggested by Wiens (C4, L1-8).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettis further teaches:
i) Production of the medical product with the production device ([0044] - - initial printing), and
j) sending a status data package, which is associated with the production device, to the production planning computer, which has received an order data package for creating of a production data package for production of the medical device ([0047] - - print server receive status information from 3D printers; [0030] - - printer server receives print jobs).
Claim 25 is substantially similar to claim 21 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 35, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis et al. US 2013/0329258 (hereinafter Pettis) in view of Miller et al. US 10,889,053 (hereinafter Miller) and Mahdavi et al. US 2014/0156053 (hereinafter Mahdavi) .
Regarding claim 35, Pettis teaches: a method for production control of a production device, comprising:
a) Establishing a data connection between a server and a data preparation computer located distanced from the server (Fig. 2, [0043] - - web servers; Client devices are data preparation computers);
b) Sending of order planning data that contain
o a production device identification, which determines a production device intended for production of one or more products ([0032] - - user to specify a single printer or a group of preferred printers for fabricating an object; [0038] - - user select a resource for a print job), and
o a material identification, which determines a material intended for production of the product ([0032] - - user preferences includes build material options),
from the data preparation computer to the server;
c) Establishing a data connection between the server and a production computer located distanced from the server ([0043] - - the print server is a production planning computer);
d) Sending of production order data that contain
- An order identification via a production order to be controlled by the production computer on a production device identify ([0060] - - numerical identifier of a model is an order identification),
- A production device identification via a production device controlled by the production computer for this production order ([0050] - - identification of fabrication resources), as well as
But Pettis does not explicitly teach:
o Comparing the order planning data with a data record assigned to the production device and/or the material from a database stored on the server and, in dependence on this comparison, generating an order release signal and sending it to the order planning computer and/or
o Comparing the production order data with a data record assigned to the production device and/or the material unit from the database and in dependence on this comparison, generating a production release signal and sending it to the production computer.
However, Miller teaches:
o Comparing the order planning data with a data record assigned to the production device and/or the material from a database stored on the server and, in dependence on this comparison, generating an order release signal and sending it to the order planning computer (C25,L1-L10 - - determining fabrication time based on a procedure data, a manufacturing duration; determine if sufficient fabrication materials are in stock) and/or
o Comparing the production order data with a data record assigned to the production device and/or the material unit from the database and in dependence on this comparison, generating a production release signal and sending it to the production computer (C25,L1-L10 - - determining fabrication time based on a procedure data, a manufacturing duration; determine if sufficient fabrication materials are in stock).
Pettis and Miller are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above server, as taught by Pettis, and incorporating production control based on material in stock, as taught by Miller.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve streamlines and facilitates fabrication process, as suggested by Miller (C1,L52-54).
But the combination of Pettis and Miller does not explicitly teach:
- A material unit identification via a material unit, which is assigned to the production device controlled by the production computer for the production order and which contains a material to be processed;
However, Mahdavi teaches:
- A material unit identification via a material unit, which is assigned to the production device controlled by the production computer for the production order and which contains a material to be processed ([0012] - - specify the material to be used by the 3D printer for printing the article; [0071] - - in a databased, the printer performance data includes the type of materials which can be used for printing)
Pettis, Miller and Mahdavi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above server, as taught by the combination of Pettis and Miller, and incorporating recording material can be used for a printer, as taught by Mahdavi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve provide a system that is accessible to the layman user for manufacturing products, as suggested by Mahdavi ([0008]).
Claim 40 is substantially similar to claim 35 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights