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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 41 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 35 recites: “optionally…”. the phrase " optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/11/2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1, 2, 18, 20 – 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 1, Pettis teaches: server for sending and receiving data (Fig. 2, [0043] - - web servers), for an order control of production orders, wherein the server is adapted
- To establish a data connection with a plurality of order computers arranged at a distance from the server at an orderer location and to receive an order data package ([0043] - - Client devices are order computers; [0047] - - the web server receives a print job from a remote user; the print job is an order data package), which contains geometric information ([0048] - - 3D models), from each of these order computers;
- To establish a data connection with a plurality of production planning computers distanced from the server at a production planning location ([0043] - - the print server is a production planning computer) and to send each of the received order data packages to one of the production planning computers ([0030] - - printer server receives print jobs) and to receive from each one of those production planning computers production data packages that are
o geometric and production flow control information for the production of one or more medical products ([0047] - - print queue data is production flow control information) and address information about a production device ([0036] - - the print server stores a location of a 3D printer; [0044] - - locate a closest printer for fabrication of the object; thus the server receives the location of the printer) wherein the production data package have been created in dependence on order data packages ([0063] - - prepares machine-ready models based on the 3D model),
- To establish a data connection with a plurality of production control computers, each located at a production location distanced from the server, and to receive from each of these production control computers and/or from each production device controlled by these production control computers ([0047] - - print server receive status information from 3D printers)
o a device data package which contains information about production devices controlled by these production control computers ([0047] - - receive status information from 3D printers),
o and to receive a status data package which contains information about materials to be processed with the respective production device ([0066] - - a printer have ability to select building materials) and/or information about the operating status of the respective production device ([0047] - - receive status information from 3D printers),
- To send the production data packages respectively to the production control computer that controls the production device 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 anatomy information,
However, Ross teaches:
geometric anatomy information ([0061] - - data generated using a digital impression scanner of jaw of a patient);
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 anatomy information, as taught by Ross.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve oral apparatus fabrication, as suggested by Ross ([0005]).
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 2, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettis further teaches: the server is adapted to send a status data package, which is associated with a particular production device, to a production planning computer, which has received an order data package for creating a production data package for production of the medical device ([0047] - - receive status information from 3D printers).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettis further teaches: a production device comprises an interface and a control unit connected to the interface, which are adapted to be connected to a server according to claim 1 via a communication system, in order to transmit data between the production device and the server and to control a production on the production device from these data ([0047] - - print server receive status information from 3D printers).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettis further teaches: - a feeding unit connected to the production device and adapted to feed at least one material to be processed to a working space of the production device ([0017] - - material is fed into the chamber),
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 4, 7, 13, 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 Wiens US 5,808,894 (hereinafter Wiens) and further in view of Miller et al. US 10,889,053 (hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens does not explicitly teach:
the server is adapted to - in dependence on a comparison of information contained in the status data package about a material stock volume available for the production device specified in the address information about a production device and information derivable from the production data package about a production volume required for production of the medical device with the production data, generate release data if the material stock volume is greater than or equal to the production volume, and
- to send the release data, for releasing and/or starting the production of the product with the production devices by means of information of the production data package, to the corresponding production control computer.
However, Miller teaches:
the server is adapted to - in dependence on a comparison of information contained in the status data package about a material stock volume available for the production device specified in the address information about a production device and information derivable from the production data package about a production volume required for production of the medical device with the production data, generate release data if the material stock volume is greater than or equal to the production volume (C24,L61-C25,L15 - - determine if sufficient fabrication materials are in stock), and
- to send the release data, for releasing and/or starting the production of the product with the production devices by means of information of the production data package, to the corresponding production control computer (C24,L66-C25,L2 - - determine a specific time at which to fabricate; C32,L22-C32-L30 - - initiate an additive manufacturing).
Pettis, Ross, Wiens 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 the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens, 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).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens does not explicitly teach:
the status data includes stock information about a quantity in stock of a material to be processed at the production location of the production device for the production device defined in the address information, and the server is adapted to - determine the difference between the stock data and a quantity of the material to be processed required for the production of the medical product,
- and in dependence on the difference to release the production of the medical product if the stock data results in a quantity in stock that is greater than or equal to the required quantity,
However, Miller teaches:
the status data includes stock information about a quantity in stock of a material to be processed at the production location of the production device for the production device defined in the address information, and the server is adapted to - determine the difference between the stock data and a quantity of the material to be processed required for the production of the medical product,
- and in dependence on the difference to release the production of the medical product if the stock data results in a quantity in stock that is greater than or equal to the required quantity (C24,L61-C25,L15 - - determine if sufficient fabrication materials are in stock),
Pettis, Ross, Wiens 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 the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens, 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).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens does not explicitly teach:
- the order data package contains information about a treatment date related to a specific medical product described in the production data package, on which a treatment of the patient with the medical product is planned,
- and the server is adapted to
o determine the time difference between the treatment date and a production date for the production of the medical product,
o and, in dependence on this specific time difference, release the production of the medical product to the respective production control computer if the planned production date lies before the treatment date,
However, Miller teaches:
- the order data package contains information about a treatment date related to a specific medical product described in the production data package, on which a treatment of the patient with the medical product is planned (C25,L4 - - a procedure data is a treatment date),
- and the server is adapted to
o determine the time difference between the treatment date and a production date for the production of the medical product (C25,L1-L10 - - determining fabrication time based on a procedure data, a manufacturing duration),
o and, in dependence on this specific time difference, release the production of the medical product to the respective production control computer if the planned production date lies before the treatment date (C25,L1-L10 - - determining fabrication time based on a procedure data, a manufacturing duration),
Pettis, Ross, Wiens 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 the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens, 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).
Claims 26, 33 – 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 26, Pettis teaches: a server for sending and receiving data for an order control of production orders, wherein the server contains a database in which data records are stored, which comprise
- device information with a production device identification about a production device controlled by the production computer ([0050] - - identification of fabrication resources); and
and the server is adapted to
- establish data connections with a plurality of data preparation computers arranged distanced from the server and to receive from a data connection with a data preparation computer order planning data for the production of one or more products (Fig. 2, [0043] - - web servers; Client devices are data preparation computers), wherein the order planning data contains:
o a production device identification, which identifies a production device that is intended for production of the one or more products ([0050] - - identification of fabrication resources); and
o a material identification, which determines a material that is intended for production of the product ([0066] - - a printer has ability to select among different build material; thus the selected material has an identification),
- establish data connections with a plurality of production computers located distanced from the server ([0043] - - the print server is a production computer) and receive production order data from a data connection with a production computer, wherein the production order data contains ([0047] - - receives a print job from a remote user; the print job is order data)
o an order identification via a production order to be controlled by the production computer on a production device ([0060] - - numerical identifier of a model is an order identification),
o A production device identification via a production device controlled by the production computer for this production order ([0050] - - identification of fabrication resources), and
o 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 ([0066] - - a printer has ability to select among different build material, thus the selected material has an identification),
But Pettis does not explicitly teach:
- an expiration date of the material unit, and/or an existing quantity of the material in the material unit;
- performing a comparison
o between the order planning data and the data record from the database assigned to the production device and/or the material unit and, in dependence on this comparison, generating an order release signal and send it to the order planning computer and/or o between the production order data and the data record from the database assigned to the production device and/or the material unit and, in dependence on this comparison, generating a production release signal and sending it to the production computer.
However, Miller teaches:
- an expiration date of the material unit, and/or an existing quantity of the material in the material unit (C25,L1-L10 - - determine if sufficient fabrication materials are in stock);
- performing a comparison
o between the order planning data and the data record from the database assigned to the production device and/or the material unit and, in dependence on this comparison, generating an order release signal and send 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 between the production order data and the data record from the database assigned to the production device and/or the material unit 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:
- Material unit information about one or more material units which can be used in the production device with
- A material unit identification,
However, Mahdavi teaches:
- Material unit information about one or more material units which can be used in the production device with
- A material unit identification ([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]).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Pettis, Miller and Mahdavi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettis further teaches: a production device (Fig. 2, [0024] - - 3D printers), for production of one or more products, wherein
- the production device comprises a production computer or is connected to a production computer for data transmission, and the production computer is connected to a server according to any one of the claims 26 via a communication system and is adapted to transmit data between the production device and the server (Fig. 2 - - 3D printers are connected to network), said data comprising:
o An order identification that identifies a production order to be controlled by the production computer on a production device ([0060] - - numerical identifier of a model is an order identification),
o A production device identification that identifies a production device controlled by the production computer for this production order ([0050] - - identification of fabrication resources), and/or
o A material unit identification, which is a material which is assigned to the production device controlled by the production computer for the production order and which contains a material to be processed ([0066] - - a printer has ability to select among different build material; thus the selected material has an identification).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Pettis, Miller and Mahdavi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettis further teaches: the production computer is adapted to - receive a decryption code from the server, decrypt an encrypted production order using the decryption code ([0046] - - encryption or decryption), and
control a production on the production device using the decrypted data of the production order ([0031] - - the print server control the printer to fabricate the object), and/or
- transmit updated material unit information to the server after start, after end or after stop.
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 a planned production date of the product and the required quantity of the material that is needed for the production of the product, from the data preparation computer to the server;
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 a planned production date of the product and the required quantity of the material that is needed for the production of the product, from the data preparation computer to the server (C25,L1-L10 - - determining fabrication time based on a procedure data, a manufacturing duration; determine if sufficient fabrication materials are in stock);
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.
Claim 6 is 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 Wiens US 5,808,894 (hereinafter Wiens) and further in view of Sunata US 2017/0285617 (hereinafter Sunata).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens does not explicitly teach:
the status data include an expiration date of a material, which is specified in the production data, to be processed held for the production device specified in the address information about a production device, and in that the server is arranged to - Determine the time difference between the expiration date of the material to be processed and a planned production date for the production of the medical device, - and, in dependence on the determined time difference, to release the production of the medical product to the respective production control computer if the expiration date is later than the planned production date,
However, Sunata teaches:
the status data include an expiration date of a material, which is specified in the production data, to be processed held for the production device specified in the address information about a production device ([0009] - - expiration date), and in that the server is arranged to
- Determine the time difference between the expiration date of the material to be processed and a planned production date for the production of the medical device,
- and, in dependence on the determined time difference, to release the production of the medical product to the respective production control computer if the expiration date is later than the planned production date ([0076] - - inhibits the use of expired consumables; this means if the consumable is not expired, it is used, thus the object is produced),
Pettis, Ross, Wiens and Sunata 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, Ross and Wiens, and incorporating release production if the material is not expired, as taught by Sunata.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid product degradation, as suggested by Sunata (Fig. 10A, Fig. 10B).
Claims 11 and 12 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 Wiens US 5,808,894 (hereinafter Wiens) and further in view of Mummidi US 2018/0111335 (hereinafter Mummidi).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens does not explicitly teach:
calculate the quantity of a material to be processed that is in stock in a production device at a certain point in time lying in the future, in dependence on the quantity of a material to be processed that is in stock in a production device and the quantity of a material to be processed that is required for a specific number of production orders,
- and, in dependence on the quantity of a material to be processed in stock at a certain point in time in the future and the quantity of the material to be processed required for a production order, release a production of the medical product for the certain point in time lying in the future, if the quantity in stock is greater than or equal to the quantity required.
However, Mummidi teaches:
calculate the quantity of a material to be processed that is in stock in a production device at a certain point in time lying in the future, in dependence on the quantity of a material to be processed that is in stock in a production device and the quantity of a material to be processed that is required for a specific number of production orders ([0022] - - estimate amount of available material based on estimate material to be used),
- and, in dependence on the quantity of a material to be processed in stock at a certain point in time in the future and the quantity of the material to be processed required for a production order, release a production of the medical product for the certain point in time lying in the future if the quantity in stock is greater than or equal to the quantity required ([0023] - -allow fabrication to commence if enough material available),
Pettis, Ross, Wiens and Mummidi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to production management 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, Ross and Wiens, and incorporating estimating available material in the future, as taught by Mummidi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve production scheduling by considering material shortage , as suggested by Mummidi (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pettis, Ross, Wiens and Mummidi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Mummidi further teaches:
calculate the quantity of a material to be processed that is in stock in a production device at a certain point in time lying in the future, in dependence on the maximum height of a medical product to be produced on a building platform and of a cross-section of an installation space defined in the device data of the production device ([0048] - - estimate material available based on width, depth and height of the object).
Pettis, Ross, Wiens and Mummidi are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claims 14 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 Wiens US 5,808,894 (hereinafter Wiens) and further in view of Chua et al. US 2005/0154625 (hereinafter Chua).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Pettis, Ross and Wiens does not explicitly teach:
the order data package contains information about a treatment date on which a treatment of the patient is planned,
- and the server is adapted to combine a plurality of production data packages to form a production collection data package,
However, Chua teaches:
the order data package contains information about a due date ([0003] - - a work order includes a due data),
- and the server is adapted to combine a plurality of production data packages to form a production collection data package ([0174] - - lot batching to group work orders),
Pettis, Ross, Wiens and Chua are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to production management 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, Ross and Wiens, and incorporating scheduling work orders based on due date, as taught by Chua.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve production scheduling, as suggested by Chua ([0027]).
Conclusion
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