DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This is a nonfinal rejection in response to claims filed on 06/03/2022. Claims 1-16 are pending and are examined herein.
Drawings
3. 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(s) mentioned in the description:
- [0108] includes the reference number “1600” to indicate an article of manufacture. However, this reference number is not found in Fig. 16 as indicated.
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.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-15: A method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture, comprising the steps:
Claim 16: A method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture, comprising the steps:
Claims 1-16 recite a method which falls under “process”. Therefore the claims are potentially eligible and are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1 and 16 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: A method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture, comprising the steps:
-providing an electronic platform;
-prompting a user to provide one or more design characteristics of said article of manufacture on said electronic platform;
-assigning a designer to generate a design of said article of manufacture based on said one or more design characteristics provided by said user;
-assigning a consultant to modify said design to improve a potential fabrication process of said design;
-assigning a fabricator; and
-fabricating said article of manufacture by said fabricator, such that one or more fabricated articles of manufacture is created.
Claim 16: A method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture, comprising the steps:
- providing an electronic platform;
- prompting a user to provide a description said article of manufacture on a canvas on said electronic platform;
- assigning a designer to generate a design of said article of manufacture based on said one or more design characteristics provided by said user;
- wherein said designer is assigned by identifying one or more characteristics of said article of manufacture and comparing said characteristics with one or more attributes of said designer to determine compatibility;
- generating said design of said article of manufacture by said designer based on said description provided by said user;
- assigning a consultant to make fabrication suggestions about said design for the purpose of making the design to make the fabrication process more efficient;
- wherein said consultant is assigned by comparing said design with one or more attributes of said consultant to determine compatibility;
- improving said design from a fabrication standpoint;
- assigning a fabricator;
- wherein said fabricator is assigned by comparing said design with one or more attributes of said fabricator to determine compatibility;
- fabricating said article of manufacture by said fabricator;
- assigning a deliverer; and
- delivering said fabricated article of manufacturer to said user.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, and 16 recite the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity. This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes claims to “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The invention aims to solve an abstract idea-based problem which is supported by the background of the specification,
“[0003] For example, when designing new of novel industrial designs most of the steps require discussing ideas with a particular specialized individual for the various stages. Some of these stages include designing, design briefing, sketching, modeling, shop drawings, design for manufacturing, quality control, fabricating, shipping, and delivery. These stages are generally disjointed and require a great deal of coordination by a human. [0004] Similar difficulties are faced in a number of industrial design fields. The common problem is often that a single individual, or company, does not have all the skills required to take an idea all the way through from conception to delivery.”
Therefore, in light of the specification, the claims merely recite methods of organizing activity in the subcategory of “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals.” Therefore, in view of the claims in bold, the abstract idea of “providing a platform, prompting a user to describe an article of manufacture to be designed, assigning a designer based on the design characteristics, assigning a consultant based on the needs, and assign a fabricator to fabricate the article of manufacture” is recited. Due to the generality and breadth of these claims which recite facilitating interactions between the user, designer, consultant, fabricator and deliverer, it is no more than a management of personal behavior because it merely provides teachings and instructions and relays rules and instructions between individuals.
Furthermore, these interactions can even be considered “commercial or legal interactions,” which is another subcategory of “certain methods of organizing human behavior” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). This category includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The limitations in bold, especially but not limited to “fabricating said article of manufacture by said fabricator, such that one or more fabricated articles of manufacture is created” in claim 1, or “delivering said fabricated article of manufacturer to said user” are still part of the abstract idea because they merely recite generic business relations. In the breadth of the claim language in view of the specification, the claims merely recite the instructions for another individual to perform the fabrication and delivery, without being directed to a specific method for manufacturing or delivery. Since the claims are more broadly reciting the business relations of assigning designers, consultants, fabricators, and deliverers, this is merely the commercial or legal interaction of facilitating business relations.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract and are to be further analyzed under step 2a prong 2 and step 2b.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, and 16 recite the following additional elements: - electronic platform in claims 1, and 16
The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea of “providing a platform, prompting a user to describe an article of manufacture to be designed, assigning a designer based on the design characteristics, assigning a consultant based on the needs, and assign a fabricator to fabricate the article of manufacture” is merely instructed to be performed on an electronic platform, which is equivalent to “apply it” or instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer. The recited computer in the specification is clearly generic as seen in at least [0052]-[0055],
“[0052]As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the methods and systems may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware embodiments. Furthermore, the methods and systems may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions (e.g., computer software) embodied in the storage medium. More particularly, the present methods and systems may take the form of web-implemented computer software. Any suitable computer-readable storage medium may be utilized including hard disks, CD-ROMs, optical storage devices, or magnetic storage devices.”
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(f), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Even when considering the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, and even when viewing the claims as a whole, the claims merely use computers/devices to perform the abstract idea or generate outputs such as instructions to a person, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Claims 1, and 16 recite the following additional elements: - electronic platform in claims 1, and 16
The additional elements have also not been found to include significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth in Prong 2. The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the use of a computer to electronically perform the abstract idea of “providing a platform, prompting a user to describe an article of manufacture to be designed, assigning a designer based on the design characteristics, assigning a consultant based on the needs, and assign a fabricator to fabricate the article of manufacture” does not provide significantly more, because the additional element does not meaningfully limit the use of the field on the abstract idea. Furthermore, improvements to the technology or technical field have not been purported. Please review MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information regarding improvements to computing devices(Section I), or technological fields(Section II). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements even when considered separately and as an ordered combination, that provide significantly more in order to be considered as an inventive concept. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more and are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-15 are also given the full two-part analysis, individually and in combination with the claims they depend on, in the following analysis:
Claims 2-8 recite more of the same abstract idea because they merely further limit the inputted “design characteristics” to “design briefs, sketch, budget, dimensions, and one or more comments,” and the impressions are merely “existing constructs, free hand sketches, and marked up illustrations.” All of these further limitations are more of the same abstract idea because they merely relay instructions in various forms to the designer, which still falls under the same abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Since there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the previous additional element of “electronic” platform, the abstract idea is still not integrated into a practical application nor has significantly more been found, even when viewing the claims as a whole.
Claims 9-13 recite more of the same abstract idea because they merely indicate that the designer, consultant, fabricator, and deliverer are selected based on the compatibility between the requirements of the design and the attributes of the designer, consultant, fabricator, and deliverer. In the breadth of the current claim language, this is merely more of the same abstract idea of “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships” as it merely recites instructions to select individuals based on compatibility. Since there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the previous additional element of “electronic” platform, the abstract idea is still not integrated into a practical application nor has significantly more been found, even when viewing the claims as a whole.
Claim 14 recites more of the same abstract idea because it requires the step of “delivering the article of manufacture to the user.” Since this is merely an instruction to the deliverer to perform the delivery and not a particular practical application, it is still more of the same abstract idea of “managing personal behavior.” Since there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the previous additional element of “electronic” platform, the abstract idea is still not integrated into a practical application nor has significantly more been found, even when viewing the claims as a whole.
Claim 15 claims the article of manufacture designed pursuant the method of claim 1, thereby the claim does pass step one because an “article of manufacture” is included in the four statutory categories. However, because the process in which is the article of manufacture is made is directed to an abstract idea, claim 15 is still directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims tie up any sort of article of manufacture created in the process, which is a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception. Claim 15 does not include any further additional elements, and even when considering the previous additional element of “electronic” platform, the abstract idea is still not integrated into a practical application nor has significantly more been found, even when viewing the claims as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeling et al. (US 11716211 B2) hereinafter Schmeling in view of Pail et al. (US 20200293024 A1) hereinafter Pail.
Regarding Claim 1:
Schmeling discloses a distributed manufacturing platform that connects designers, manufacturers, shippers and other entities. Schmeling teaches:
- A method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture, comprising the steps: providing an electronic platform; (Schmeling [Col. 4 Lines 5-23] Distributed manufacturing refers to a manufacturing approach in which, instead of having a company design and manufacture a product and then have the product shipped to a customer, products are designed, manufactured, finished, assembled, and/or shipped by one or more entities based on a variety of factors including, for example, product requirements, manufacturing capabilities and availability, location of parties, and the like. For example, one or more customers, designers, manufacturers may be linked and coordinated via a software platform such that orders, plans, designs, and other order details can be input and items can be created, packaged ready for shipment by common carrier or individual contractors... [Col. 4 Lines 41-49] Orders can be placed directly via the platform, or the platform can operate as a white-label/back-end component to an otherwise independent business (e.g., marketplace or merchant). In some examples, designers may design products and offer them for sale to customers via the platform.)
- prompting a user to provide one or more design characteristics of said article of manufacture on said electronic platform; (Schmeling [Col. 23 Lines 36-42] In a variation of the previous example, the platform 304 may assist the customer 302(2) to locate one or more appropriate designers 302(1), to assist in the design of a new product for the customer 302(2). The customer 302(2) may submit a product specification 308 to the platform 304, which may be processed and uploaded to the data store 306.)
- assigning a designer to generate a design of said article of manufacture based on said one or more design characteristics provided by said user; (Schmeling [Col. 23 Lines 42-48] In this example, the platform 304 may match the product specification 308 with one or more designers by taking into consideration the job difficulty, designer skill level, designer pay level, designer specialty, designer reputation or rating, and/or other factors, and applying matching algorithms, machine learning models, or invoking a third-party matching service as described in the preceding example. The designer(s) 302(1) may create data file(s) appropriate for input to 3D printer(s) and/or other manufacturing equipment and may upload them to the data store 306 for review and approval by the customer 302(2).)
- assigning a fabricator; and (Schmeling [Col. 20 Lines 32-39] At operation (D), the platform 304 selects (or recommends) the printer owner 302(3), from among multiple available printer owners (not shown in this figure), to print the item using a matching algorithm or machine learning model that matches product requirements and/or customer criteria with the capabilities of multiple possible printer owners. In some examples, the matching of entities may be performed autonomously by the platform 304. [Col. 23 Lines 55-62] The platform 304 may also assist the customer 302(2) to locate one or more appropriate 3D printer owners 302(3) having one or more 3D printers or other machines to create an appropriate quantity of the product(s). The platform 304 may help the customer 302(2) to locate the 3D printer owners 302(3) based upon geographic location, print job cost, quality of output, printer or media characteristics, or other criteria.)
- fabricating said article of manufacture by said fabricator, such that one or more fabricated articles of manufacture is created. (Schmeling [Col. 6 Lines 46-52] Therefore, a product could be created at a 3D printer, and the packaging for the product could be printed around the product as the product was being created. Alternatively, the packaging could be printed around the product after the product was printed. The package and the item could be printed or otherwise manufactured at the same or different physical locations or facilities. [Col. 9 Lines 48-50] The platform may provide progress reports to the customer and/or designer, as the product and/or the packaging of the product is 3-D printed.)
However, Schmeling fails to teach:
- assigning a consultant to modify said design to improve a potential fabrication process of said design;
Alternatively, Pail discloses an on-demand digital manufacturing platform which receives digital design files and analyzes the producibility of the files by the whether the attributes satisfies the manufacturing technology requirements. Pail teaches:
- assigning a consultant to modify said design to improve a potential fabrication process of said design; (Pail [0048] If possible content or license violations are detected, the platform 110 can perform a manual check at step 324. For example, the platform 110 can flag the design for review by a human reviewer, who can mark the design as acceptable or identify a particular policy violated by the design. The results of the manual check can be fed back into the AI module to improve the module's accuracy. A design that is determined to violate a content license or policy can, in some cases, be modified to comply with the rules. These changes may include, for example, adapting content of the design, making overall changes to meet an expected quality of the design, or generally optimizing the design to achieve a specified price or producibility. In some cases, the platform 110 may automatically modify the design. In other cases, the platform 110 may require the designer to modify the design, or may push the design to an in-house designer to make any modifications necessary to comply with licenses or policies.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “consultant” is any entity that is in charge of modifying the design to improve the potential fabrication process. Therefore, in Pail, since the platform flags designs back to a human reviewer including providing them to another designer, whether it is to optimize the producibility, or make any modifications necessary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Schmeling by adding the review process of Pail which ensures that the design is producible through various processes including sending the design back to a human reviewer to provide modifications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would provide the benefit of ensuring the quality of designs to be passed to a manufacturer. (Pail [0058] The platform 110 can also request a test object from the manufacturer. FIG. 4H shows that the platform 110 can provide the manufacturer with a test object to print and mail to an administrator of the platform for review and approval. FIGS. 4I-4K illustrate views of an example test object. The test object can be used, for example, to verify that the printer is capable of producing a design with sufficient quality, of a certain resolution, or satisfying other criteria. In some cases, the platform 110 may send a manufacturer a unique design to be printed on each machine registered by the manufacturer, allowing the platform 110 to verify that a test object was printed by a particular machine.)
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest The method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture of claim 1:
Furthermore, Schmeling teaches:
- wherein said one or more design characteristics comprise a design brief, a sketch, a budget, dimensions, and one or more comments to generate a design brief of said article of manufacture on said electronic platform. (Schmeling [Col. 15 Lines 57 – Col. 16 Line 2] In some examples, product specifications 108 may include a description of features, characteristics, and requirements of a product that a customer desires to have designed and/or manufactured. In some examples, product specifications 108 may additionally or alternatively include engineering drawings, renderings, sketches, blue prints, material specifications, or other information related to the design and/or manufacture of the product. (66) Part or item models 110 may include computer generated drawings or models of individual parts, assemblies, and/or whole items or products. The item models 110 may include 2D and/or 3D models including, without limitation, computer aided design (CAD) files [Col. 4 Line 49] Customers may specify budgets,) In Schmeling, the “description of features, characteristics, and requires that a customer desires to have designed or manufactured” satisfies the “design brief”, and “one or more comments to generate a design brief of said article of manufacture on said platform” limitations. The “part or item models” satisfies the “dimensions” limitation, since it is information that includes dimensions. Therefore, since Schmeling teaches all of the above, the entire limitation has been met.
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest The method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture of claim 2:
Furthermore, Schmeling teaches:
- wherein said one or more comments comprise guidance as to one or more desired features of said article of manufacture. (Schmeling [Col. 15 Lines 57-60] In some examples, product specifications 108 may include a description of features, characteristics, and requirements of a product that a customer desires to have designed and/or manufactured. [Col. 8 Lines 8-11] In other examples, customers may place orders or request quotes for custom products that are not yet in existence, and the designers may create and upload the designs responsive to customer order or request for quote.)
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest The method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture of claim 1:
Furthermore, Schmeling teaches:
- wherein said designer is assigned by comparing said one or more design characteristics of said article of manufacture to one or more attributes of said designer to determine compatibility. (Schmeling [Col. 40 Lines 54-67] At block 1608, responsive to receiving the request from the customer for the item, and (in some instances) prior to determining capabilities needed to manufacture the item, one or more candidates designers having the ability and capability to design the item may be identified. The identification process may consider the designers skill, and also experience with printers available at different manufacturers that are compatible with the manufacture of the item. At block 1610, one or more designers are selected from the candidate designers based on the one or more criteria. Criteria may include design skill level, design approval by past customers, designer experience with 3D printers capable of manufacturing the item, design fees, designer location and other criteria.)
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest The method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture of claim 1:
While Schmeling does teach:
- wherein said designer is assigned by comparing said design with one or more attributes of said designer to determine compatibility. (Schmeling [Col. 23 Lines 36-48] In a variation of the previous example, the platform 304 may assist the customer 302(2) to locate one or more appropriate designers 302(1), to assist in the design of a new product for the customer 302(2). The customer 302(2) may submit a product specification 308 to the platform 304, which may be processed and uploaded to the data store 306. In this example, the platform 304 may match the product specification 308 with one or more designers by taking into consideration the job difficulty, designer skill level, designer pay level, designer specialty, designer reputation or rating, and/or other factors, and applying matching algorithms, machine learning models, or invoking a third-party matching service as described in the preceding example.) While the claims require “wherein said consultant is assigned by comparing said design with one or more attributes of said consultant to determine compatibility,” Schmeling does not explicitly teach “consultants.” However, Schmeling does teach the process of assigning by comparing said design with attributes of a designer to determine compatibility.
However, Schmeling fails to teach:
- specifically that a “consultant” is being assigned instead of a designer.
Alternatively, Pail teaches:
- that the consultant is assigned (Pail [0048] If possible content or license violations are detected, the platform 110 can perform a manual check at step 324. For example, the platform 110 can flag the design for review by a human reviewer, who can mark the design as acceptable or identify a particular policy violated by the design. The results of the manual check can be fed back into the AI module to improve the module's accuracy. A design that is determined to violate a content license or policy can, in some cases, be modified to comply with the rules. These changes may include, for example, adapting content of the design, making overall changes to meet an expected quality of the design, or generally optimizing the design to achieve a specified price or producibility. In some cases, the platform 110 may automatically modify the design. In other cases, the platform 110 may require the designer to modify the design, or may push the design to an in-house designer to make any modifications necessary to comply with licenses or policies.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Schmeling by performing the search for the consultant in Pail (the human reviewer, or in-house designer) using the same matching methods taught in Schmeling to find a designer. By combining the references by substituting Pail’s consultant/reviewer into Schmeling’s designer assigning method, it would yield the predictable outcome of “wherein said consultant is assigned by comparing said design with one or more attributes of said consultant to determine compatibility.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would provide the benefit of ensuring the quality of designs to be passed to a manufacturer. (Pail [0058] The platform 110 can also request a test object from the manufacturer. FIG. 4H shows that the platform 110 can provide the manufacturer with a test object to print and mail to an administrator of the platform for review and approval. FIGS. 4I-4K illustrate views of an example test object. The test object can be used, for example, to verify that the printer is capable of producing a design with sufficient quality, of a certain resolution, or satisfying other criteria. In some cases, the platform 110 may send a manufacturer a unique design to be printed on each machine registered by the manufacturer, allowing the platform 110 to verify that a test object was printed by a particular machine.)
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest The method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture of claim 10:
However, Schmeling fails to teach:
- further comprising the step: improving said design of said article of manufacturer from a fabrication standpoint by said consultant.
Alternatively, Pail teaches:
- improving said design of said article of manufacturer from a fabrication standpoint by said consultant. (Pail [0048] These changes may include, for example, adapting content of the design, making overall changes to meet an expected quality of the design, or generally optimizing the design to achieve a specified price or producibility. In some cases, the platform 110 may automatically modify the design. In other cases, the platform 110 may require the designer to modify the design, or may push the design to an in-house designer to make any modifications necessary to comply with licenses or policies. [0050] FIG. 3B shows a variation of the design upload process shown in FIG. 3A, including steps that are similar to the process in FIG. 3A. A discussion of the steps also appearing in FIG. 3A is omitted here. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3B, if the design is determined to not be producible, the platform 110 can repair the design to make the design producible. At step 328 in FIG. 3B, the platform 110 performs a general producibility repair on the design if the design is found to not be producible by one or more fabrication technologies at step 306.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Schmeling by adding the improving of the design from a fabrication standpoint as taught by Pail in the form of optimizing the design to achieve a specified producibility. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would provide the benefit of ensuring the quality of designs to be passed to a manufacturer. (Pail [0058] The platform 110 can also request a test object from the manufacturer. FIG. 4H shows that the platform 110 can provide the manufacturer with a test object to print and mail to an administrator of the platform for review and approval. FIGS. 4I-4K illustrate views of an example test object. The test object can be used, for example, to verify that the printer is capable of producing a design with sufficient quality, of a certain resolution, or satisfying other criteria. In some cases, the platform 110 may send a manufacturer a unique design to be printed on each machine registered by the manufacturer, allowing the platform 110 to verify that a test object was printed by a particular machine.)
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest The method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture of claim 1:
Furthermore, Schmeling teaches:
- wherein said fabricator is assigned by comparing said design with one or more attributes of said fabricator to determine compatibility. (Schmeling [Col. 39 Lines 26-31] locks 1302 through 1310 show example techniques for selecting one or more manufacturers from among the candidate manufacturers based on one or more criteria of block 1108 of FIG. 11. At block 1302, the one or more candidate manufacturers may consist of a manufacturer having 3D printers capable of printing the item. [Col. 41 Lines 8-30] . At block 1702, information regarding and/or describing an item to be printed is received... In the example of block 1704, the information of the item to be printed may include at least one of: a computer model of the item, a bit price to print the item; a quantity of the item to be printed; and/or a material of the item to be printed. At block 1706, one or multiple 3D printers, from among a network or group of available 3D printers, are identified. The identified printers are among those capable of printing the item. At block 1708, one or more 3D printers are selected from among the identified 3D printers. The identified and selected printers are consistent with the criteria of the item to be printed.[Col. 21 Lines 53-56] In addition to or instead of using matching algorithm, in some examples the platform 304 may use a machine learning model to categorize orders and/or match orders with printer owners or other manufacturers.)
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest The method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture of claim 1:
Furthermore, Schmeling teaches:
- further comprising the step: assigning a deliverer; (Schmeling [Col. 38 Lines 54-58] At block 1114, one or more candidate shippers that are capable of shipping the item may be identified. At block 1116, one or more shippers may be selected from among the one or more candidate shippers based at least in part on one or more shipping criteria.)
- wherein said deliverer is assigned by comparing said one or more fabricated articles of manufacture with one or more attributes of said deliverer to determine compatibility. (Schmeling [Col. 38 Line 59 – Col. 39 Line 3] Blocks 1118-1122 describe techniques that may be utilized to selected shippers. At block 1118, a shipping time (e.g., departure time, transit time, arrival time, etc.) from one or more of the manufacturers may be use in the selection process of block 1116. At block 1120, available shipping mode(s) to ship the item from the one or more manufacturers to the recipient may be considered. At block 1122, the cost to ship the item from the one or more manufacturers to the recipient may be determined, calculated and/or obtained. At block 1124, instructions may be sent to the one or more shippers to ship the item from the one or more manufacturers to a recipient. [Col. 6 Lines 24-36] Additional matching criteria could be based on pricing, number of items ordered, activity level of required printers (i.e. how busy is the needed machine), print materials or final quality. In a further example, a reverse-auction style selection system would allow printer owners, designers and/or shippers to bid on jobs. Other example criteria include a maximum distance from the final location, a minimum rating (e.g., job quality reputation) for the printer owner, a minimum quality level for the individual printer, etc. These and/or numerous other criteria may be used individually or in combination to match parties on the distributed manufacturing platform. Various non-limiting examples are provided throughout this application.)
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest The method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture of claim 13:
Furthermore, Schmeling teaches:
-further comprising the step: delivering said one or more fabricated articles of manufacture to said user by said deliverer. (Schmeling [Col. 22 Line 51- Col. 23 Line 4] At operation (K) the packaged item may be transferred to the shipper 302(4). In some examples, the shipper 302(4) may pick up packaged item from the printer owner 304(3), while in some examples the printer owner 302(3) may deliver the packaged item to the shipper 302(4), and in still other examples another delivery service (e.g., a local delivery service) may transfer the packaged item from the printer owner 302(3) to the shipper 302(4). The shipper 302(4) may load the packaged item onto a land vehicle 316 (e.g., car, truck, bus, train, etc.), aircraft 318 (airplane, helicopter, drone, etc.), watercraft 320 (e.g., ship, boat, barge, ferry, etc.), or couriers 322 (e.g., on foot or bicycle) for delivery to the customer 302(2). In some examples, the packaged item may be transferred from one vehicle/aircraft/watercraft/courier to another directly or via one or more transfer stations. Each time the packaged item is transferred, the location and/or custody of the package may be tracked and recorded to the ledger 314 (e.g., by sensors in the package and/or sensors at the transfer site). At operation (L) the shipper 302(4) delivers the packaged item to customer 302(2).)
Regarding Claim 15:
The combination of Schmeling and Pail teach or suggest the method of claim 1:
Furthermore, Schmeling teaches:
- An article of manufacture; wherein said article of manufacture is designed pursuant the system and method of claim 1.(Schmeling [Col. 3 Lines 27-34] Unless otherwise specified, the terms “item” and “product” are used synonymously herein to refer to any physical object made by one or more parties. The item or object may be comprised of a single part or multiple parts, and may be made by additive manufacturing and/or traditional manufacturing techniques. The term “unit” refers to a single instance of an item or product, and the term “units” refers to multiple instances of the item or product. )
Regarding Claim 16:
Schmeling teaches:
-A method of designing, fabricating, and shipping an article of manufacture, comprising the steps: providing an electronic platform; (Schmeling [Col. 4 Lines 5-23] Distributed manufacturing refers to a manufacturing approach in which, instead of having a company design and manufacture a product and then have the product shipped to a customer, products are designed, manufactured, finished, assembled, and/or shipped by one or more entities based on a variety of factors including, for example, product requirements, manufacturing capabilities and availability, location of parties, and the like. For example, one or more customers, designers, manufacturers may be linked and coordinated via a software platform such that orders, plans, designs, and other order details can be input and items can be created, packaged ready for shipment by common carrier or individual contractors... [Col. 4 Lines 41-49] Orders can be placed directly via the platform, or the platform can operate as a white-label/back-end component to an otherwise independent business (e.g., marketplace or merchant). In some examples, designers may design products and offer them for sale to customers via the platform.)
- prompting a user to provide a description said article of manufacture on a canvas on said electronic platform; (Schmeling [Col. 23 Lines 36-42] In a variation of the previous example, the platform 304 may assist the customer 302(2) to locate one or more appropriate designers 302(1), to assist in the design of a new product for the customer 302(2). The customer 302(2) may submit a product specification 308 to the platform 304, which may be processed and uploaded to the data store 306.)
- assigning a designer to generate a design of said article of manufacture based on said one or more design characteristics provided by said user; (Schmeling [Col. 23 Lines 42-48] In this example, the platform 304 may match the product specification 308 with one or more designers by taking into consideration the job difficulty, designer skill level, designer pay level, designer specialty, designer reputation or rating, and/or other factors, and applying matching algorithms, machine learning models, or invoking a third-party matching service as described in the preceding example. The designer(s) 302(1) may create data file(s) appropriate for input to 3D printer(s) and/or other manufacturing equipment and may upload them to the data store 306 for review and approval by the customer 302(2).))
- wherein said designer is assigned by identifying one or more characteristics of said article of manufacture and comparing said characteristics with one or more attributes of said designer to determine compatibility; (Schmeling [Col. 40 Lines 54-67] At block 1608, responsive to receiving the request from the customer for the item, and (in some instances) prior to determining capabilities needed to manufacture the item, one or more candidates designers having the ability and capability to design the item may be identified. The identification process may consider the designers skill, and also experience with printers available at different manufacturers that are compatible with the manufacture of the item. At block 1610, one or more designers are selected from the candidate designers based on the one or more criteria. Criteria may include design skill level, design approval by past customers, designer experience with 3D printers capable of manufacturing the item, design fees, designer location and other criteria.)
- generating said design of said article of manufacture by said designer based on said description provided by said user; (Schmeling [Col. 7 Line 62- Col. 8 Line 11] Designers: Designers are responsible for creating and uploading digital design files, such as computer aided design (CAD) files, part models, package models, engineering drawings, product specifications, blueprints, images, renderings, etc. These digital design files may or may not include printer settings (though final printer settings may need additional input from printer manufacturers, printer operators, customers, or the like), material specifications, surface finishes, manufacturing specifications (e.g., manufacturing processes, machines to be used to manufacture, required tolerances, etc.), or the like. These designs can then either be ordered by the designers themselves, or sold to customers directly or through a merchant interface of the platform or a third-party site. In other examples, customers may place orders or request quotes for custom products that are not yet in existence, and the designers may create and upload the designs responsive to customer order or request for quote.)
- assigning a fabricator; (Schmeling [Col. 20 Lines 32-39] At operation (D), the platform 304 selects (or recommends) the printer owner 302(3), from among multiple available printer owners (not shown in this figure), to print the item using a matching algorithm or machine learning model that matches product requirements and/or customer criteria with the capabilities of multiple possible printer owners. In some examples, the matching of entities may be performed autonomously by the platform 304. [Col. 23 Lines 55-62] The platform 304 may also assist the customer 302(2) to locate one or more appropriate 3D printer owners 302(3) having one or more 3D printers or other machines to create an appropriate quantity of the product(s). The platform 304 may help the customer 302(2) to locate the 3D printer owners 302(3) based upon geographic location, print job cost, quality of output, printer or media characteristics, or other criteria.)
- wherein said fabricator is assigned by comparing said design with one or more attributes of said fabricator to determine compatibility; (Schmeling [Col. 39 Lines 26-31] locks 1302 through 1310 show example techniques for selecting one or more manufacturers from among the candidate manufacturers based on one or more criteria of block 1108 of FIG. 11. At block 1302, the one or more candidate manufacturers may consist of a manufacturer having 3D printers capable of printing the item. [Col. 41 Lines 8-30] . At block 1702, information regarding and/or describing an item to be printed is received... In the example of block 1704, the information of the item to be printed may include at least one of: a computer model of the item, a bit price to print the item; a quantity of the item to be printed; and/or a material of the item to be printed. At block 1706, one or multiple 3D printers, from among a network or group of available 3D printers, are identified. The identified printers are among those capable of printing the item. At block 1708, one or more 3D printers are selected from among the identified 3D printers. The identified and selected printers are consistent with the criteria of the item to be printed.[Col. 21 Lines 53-56] In addition to or instead of using matching algorithm, in some examples the platform 304 may use a machine learning model to categorize orders and/or match orders with printer owners or other manufacturers.)
- fabricating said article of manufacture by said fabricator; (Schmeling [Col. 6 Lines 46-52] Therefore, a product could be created at a 3D printer, and the packaging for the product could be printed around the product as the product was being created. Alternatively, the packaging could be printed around the product after the product was printed. The package and the item could be printed or otherwise manufactured at the same or different physical locations or facilities. [Col. 9 Lines 48-50] The platform may provide progress reports to the customer and/or designer, as the product and/or the packaging of the product is 3-D printed.)
- assigning a deliverer; and (Schmeling [Col. 38 Lines 54-58] At block 1114, one or more candidate shippers that are capable of shipping the item may be identified. At block 1116, one or more shippers may be selected from among the one or more candidate shippers based at least in part on one or more shipping criteria.)
- delivering said fabricated article of manufacturer to said user. (Schmeling [Col. 22 Line 51- Col. 23 Line 4] At operation (K) the packaged item may be transferred to the shipper 302(4). In some examples, the shipper 302(4) may pick up packaged item from the printer owner 304(3), while in some examples the printer owner 302(3) may deliver the packaged item to the shipper 302(4), and in still other examples another delivery service (e.g., a local delivery service) may transfer the packaged item from the printer owner 302(3) to the shipper 302(4). The shipper 302(4) may load the packaged item onto a land vehicle 316 (e.g., car, truck, bus, train, etc.), aircraft 318 (airplane, helicopter, drone, etc.), watercraft 320 (e.g., ship, boat, barge, ferry,