DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Claims 12-18 have been withdrawn.
This office action is in response to the election submitted on 03-MAR-2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “negative compensation”, found in in claim 1, does not appear in the body of the specification and is only found in the abstract and claims. It how the “negative compensation” is performed and how the method is applied to the voxel grid. Further, if the term has been introduced as part of a CIP, this will change the priority date of the claims. In paragraph [0204] of the specification as published recites the term “negative offset compensation”. If “negative compensation” and “negative offset compensation” are equivalent, Examiner recommends using the term as recited in the specification. If the terms are not equivalents, the claim will receive the priority date of the filing of the CIP.
The term “binder jetting additively manufacturing”, found in in claims 1, 2, and 10, does not appear in the body of the specification and is only found in the abstract and claims.
The term “bi-directional binder jetting”, found in in claims 7 and 8, does not appear in the body of the specification and is only found in the abstract and claims.
Paragraph [0168] recites “binder jet systems” and paragraph [0174] recites the term “binder jet 3D printing”. Paragraph [0046] recites the term “bi-directional printing”. In paragraphs [0214-0216], The specification recites the term “bi-directional powder spreading”. Examiner recommends using the term as recited in the specification.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the maximum of two distortion factors". The claim should read as "a maximum of two distortion factors". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
receiving an initial design file defining an object geometry;
The “initial design file” is a description of an object. The “object geometry” parameters are not defined. Fig. 26A describes the “initial design file” as found in [0228] of the specification as published. Fig. 26A can be observed and visualized in the mind.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
representing the object geometry as a part mesh;
A “part mesh” is made as a representation. A representation is an abstract visualization of a part. [0150] of the specification as published describes 1205 from Fig. 12 as the exemplary mesh model. The representation shown in 1205 could be reasonably be done in the mind by observing the part and forming a judgement on how the mesh is placed on the part.
PNG
media_image2.png
104
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
filling the mesh with a grid of voxels to create a voxel grid, each voxel having at least one shrinkage coefficient;
A “grid of voxels” are created based on the “object geometry”. The voxels are a 3D unit when the part is discretized. A person can reasonably observe an object and visualize the “voxel grid” in the cases of simple shapes as in Fig. 26C of the specification. The voxels are assigned the “shrinkage coefficient” where the coefficient is described in paragraph [0228] of the publication “However, FIG. 26F depicts the voxel grid 2602 after completion of a simulated sintering cycle wherein the voxels of the left side of object have a shrinkage coefficient that results in greater shrinkage than the voxels of the right side.” The shrinkage can be visualized in the mind if the object can be observed and determination made based on judgement on which side of the object will have greater shrinkage based on experience when desiging.
PNG
media_image3.png
378
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for each voxel, determining a distortion factor caused by a powder density variation induced during a powder spreading process;
The “distortion factor” is represented by an equation as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
50
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The “powder density variation” are components determined as part of the density multiplier (B), density offset (O), and density decay (D). The “distortion factor” is a result of the evaluation of the “voxel grid”.
adjusting the at least one shrinkage coefficient of each voxel according to its respective distortion factor;
The “adjusting” of the “shrinkage coefficient” is based on the observation of how the distortion occurs in the object and an evaluation is performed for deciding what the “shrinkage coefficient” should be adjusted to. This can be accomplished by adjusting the coefficient based on trial and error from observation.
simulating a shrinkage of the grid of voxels according to a sintering process;
Paragraph [0228] of the publication describes the simulated “sintering process”: “A sintering process may be simulated in a N number of iterative steps wherein the lengths of each of the voxel sides is computed at each time step 0→N. The length of each particular side may be calculated as: ls+1=ls×distortion_factor×shrink_rate where ls is the length from the previous iteration. The distortion factor and the shrink rate may be changed at each step.” The “simulating a shrinkage” is being performed by determining the length based on the equation ls×distortion_factor×shrink_rate, which is an evaluation of the observed data and a mathematical equation.
applying a negative compensation to the grid of voxels, according to the simulated shrinkage of the grid of voxels, to form a compensated grid of voxels;
Performing an evaluation of the “negative compensation” is interpreted as using the “negative distortion algorithm” as found in paragraph [0137] of the publication: “System 100 may also provide a negative distortion algorithm, which may generate negative distortion vectors. The algorithm may iteratively adjust a negative offset and re-run a generative design simulation until the simulation result matches a desired part shape.” The algorithm is adjusted until the desired effect is accomplished, which an based on judgement when observing the results. The algorithm is also interpreted as a mathematical algorithm.
mapping the change in the grid of voxels to the compensated grid of voxels onto the part mesh to create a pre-processed compensated part mesh.
The “mapping” of the change onto the “part mesh” amounts to performing a comparison, which is an observation and evaluation. Fig. 26G demonstrates the process of “mapping”.
PNG
media_image5.png
312
164
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and mathematical concepts.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2).
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of binder jetting additively manufacturing a part according to the pre-processed compensated part mesh.
The “binder jetting additively manufacturing a part” is evaluated as an additional element under Step 2A Prong 2. The “manufacturing” is recited at a high level of generality and is interpreted as post solution activity. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, the additional limitation is post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the distortion factor is determined according to:
PNG
media_image6.png
38
142
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
DF is a Distortion Factor is a modifier accounting for the shrinkage of a point;
B is a Density Multiplier representing the maximum spike in the density at the leading edges of transition from non-printed to printed regions;
O is a density offset representing the distance over which a density spike remains fixed at its initial value before starting to decay;
D is a density decay representing decay in the density spike;
E is the incidence angle;
F is the distance of a point downstream from an upstream transition boundary; and
C is a constant value.
The claim recites an explicit mathematical equation and is a mathematical concept. (Step 2A Prong 1)
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of determining the distortion factor includes accounting for a density gap threshold that is a distance to a next upstream wall.
The “accounting for a density gap threshold that is a distance to a next upstream wall” is an evaluation. The “distance” is observed and an evaluation performed between the “upstream wall”. A “threshold” is used for a comparison, which is further evaluation. (Step 2A Prong 1)
5. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of determining the distortion factor includes accounting for a density height, wherein below a threshold a density buildup is zero.
The “density height” is an observation of the height of the material. A “threshold” is applied as “zero”. One could reasonably observe a surface and evaluate if there are any irregularities amounting to height. (Step 2A Prong 1)
6. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least one shrinkage coefficient for each voxel includes a first axis shrinkage coefficient, a second axis shrinkage coefficient and a third axis shrinkage coefficient.
The “first axis”, “second axis”, and “third axis” is interpreted as the x, y, and z axes. The evaluation of the axes is an observation of the “voxel” and an evaluation if the “voxel” has “shrinkage” in any of the directions of the axes to determine the “shrinkage coefficient”. (Step 2A Prong 1)
7. The method of claim 2 wherein the step of binder jetting additively manufacturing the part includes bi-directional binder jetting.
The “manufacturing the part includes bi-directional binder jetting” is evaluated as an additional element under Step 2A Prong 2. The “manufacturing” is recited at a high level of generality and is interpreted as post solution activity. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, the additional limitation is post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 4-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shkolnik et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0125356 A1 (hereinafter ‘Shkolnik’) in view of
Myerberg et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0297111 A1 (hereinafter ‘Myerberg’).
Regarding Claim 1: A method of compensating for sintering warpage due to powder spreading density variations in binder jetting additive manufacturing, comprising:
Shkolnik teaches receiving an initial design file defining an object geometry; (Fig. 1O Shkolnik elements 191 and 192)
PNG
media_image7.png
772
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Shkolnik teaches representing the object geometry as a part mesh; ([0141] Shkolnik “…The mapping may provide a mesh mapping (e.g., particular datapoints that represent the 2-dimensional surface) or a pixel-by-pixel mapping…”)
Shkolnik teaches filling the mesh with a grid of voxels to create a voxel grid, each voxel having at least one shrinkage coefficient; ([0172] Shkolnik “…As an example, a portion 12 of the three-dimensional object 9 under construction can be seen as voxel data 13 in a side view. Voxel data 13 may comprise a plurality of voxels 14 that have different depths. The depths of each voxel 14 may be dependent on the grayscale value used during generation or the time of exposure. As shown the voxel data may include voxels that are not organized in a flat manner to as to provide stress relief to three-dimensional object 9 as it is being constructed, and to provide increased structural integrity. Where some voxels 14 may appear to protrude upwardly and downwardly, they may actually interleave with other voxels (e.g., below and above) to form the desired geometry for three-dimensional object 9. Such voxelization construction techniques may be superior to layer-based techniques in that the surface regions may be smoother and more accurate, the geometric accuracy of three-dimensional object 9 may be increased (due to reduced internal stresses when using variable depth of cure and interleaving), as well as providing increased structural integrity (e.g., using interleaving). Moreover, as shown in the voxel data 13, the interior voxels (e.g., interior to three-dimensional object 9) may have reduced depth (e.g., reduced intensity) because this may be where the maximum shrinkage of the reactive material occurs (note that shrinkage, if any, is material dependent based on the type of reactive material used with or without fillers etc.)…”)
Shkolnik teaches for each voxel, determining a distortion factor ([0189] Shkolnik “…FIG. 1ME is an example of applying a correction offset to the boundary of the component to a corrected voxel location. As discussed herein, the methods for correction of linear and nonlinear distortions may be integer-based (e.g., full voxel) or real-based (e.g., where voxelized construction is performed)…”)
Shkolnik teaches adjusting the at least one shrinkage coefficient of each voxel according to its respective distortion factor; ([0236] Shkolnik “…In step 556, the corrected subdivided voxel data sets 582, 584 are projected using the pattern generator. The corrected voxel data sets have been adjusted for linear and nonlinear distortion of the pattern generator so that when projected, the ideal pattern is generated on the build surface. Moreover, the subdivided voxel data sets allow for construction of work pieces that may otherwise curl or distort due to their shape and shrinkage of reactive material during the construction process…”)
Shkolnik teaches simulating a shrinkage of the grid of voxels according to a sintering process; ([0092] Shkolnik “…Moreover, the systems and methods described herein may also apply to layered construction processes using "upward" or "downward" methods that may use lithography (generally), FTI (Film Transfer Imaging), three-dimensional Printing technologies, SLS (Selective Laser Sintering) or SLA (Stereolithography Apparatus)…” [0214] Shkolnik “…At step 197, a geometry modification/correction method may be applied to the STL file (or other file type that approximates the CAD model) prior to slicing in step 193. In general, geometry modification/correction may include determining internal stresses and shrinkage during manufacture that may cause the work piece to curl or distort in an undesired manner. To correct this, the geometry of the work piece may be modified/corrected prior to generation so that the final work piece closely approximates the CAD model. For example, static or dynamic finite element analysis (FEA) or finite element methods (FEM) may be applied to the STL file representation of the work piece (or the original three-dimensional CAD model(s)) to determine where internal stresses and/or shrinkage of the reactive material may cause the work piece(s) to curl or distort. The STL file(s) or three-dimensional CAD model(s) representing the work piece(s) may then be modified to reduce or eliminate internal stresses and/or shrinkage. While the corrected STL file(s) or corrected three-dimensional CAD model(s) file may not approximate the CAD model when viewed directly, the corrected STL file will better approximate the CAD model after construction of the work piece…”)
Shkolnik teaches applying a negative compensation to the grid of voxels, according to the simulated shrinkage of the grid of voxels, to form a compensated grid of voxels; ([0148] Shkolnik “…In an example where a voxelized construction process is used, both the position and the intensity (e.g., a grayscale value) may be adjusted to correct for linear and nonlinear distortions. Such intensity compensation is also useful for achieving sub-pixel features during the build process. For example, in voxelized construction, grayscale values may be used where facets of the design ( e.g., the component or part to be constructed as described for example by an STL file) volumetrically intersect with a voxel volume…” [0153] “…In step 1320, the ideal patterns are modified by the pattern generator calibration/correction maps determined in method 1200. Controller 120 outputs corrected patterns 132, 134 to pattern generators 102, 104. The modification may include simple translation or it may include a complete two-dimensional mapping of the image to compensate for geometric distortion of the pattern generator. Examples of geometric distortion are shown below with respect to FIGS. 5A-5C and may include both linear and non-linear distortion. The modification of the ideal patterns removes such distortion when finally output by a pattern generator…”)
Shkolnik teaches mapping the change in the grid of voxels to the compensated grid of voxels onto the part mesh to create a pre-processed compensated part mesh. ([0190] Shkolnik “…When using voxelized construction, the grayscale value for each voxel may also be determined to provide the detail, and in particular, the surface detail of the component. The fractional portions of the correction values for X and Y may be used to determine the location of the component boundary and then the grayscale values for the voxels may be determined. For example, once the corrected central point C' is determined based on the integer values of the correction map, the fractional portions of the correction values may be used to determine the location of the component boundary within the corrected voxel region…”)
Shkolnik does not appear to explicitly disclose
caused by a powder density variation induced during a powder spreading process;
However, Myerberg teaches caused by a powder density variation induced during a powder spreading process; ([0038] Myerberg “…In the context of this description, it will be appreciated that sintering may usefully include different types of sintering. For example, sintering may include the application of heat to sinter an object to full density or nearly full density. In another aspect, sintering may include partial sintering, e.g., for a sintering and infiltration process in which pores of a partially sintered part are filled, e.g., through contact and capillary action, with some other material such as a low melting point metal to increase hardness, increase tensile strength, or otherwise alter or improve properties of a final part. Thus, any references herein to sintering should be understood to contemplate sintering and infiltration unless a different meaning is expressly stated or otherwise clear from the context. Similarly, references to a sinterable powder or sinterable build material should be understood to contemplate any sinterable material including powders that can be sintered and infiltrated to form a final part…” [0126] “…The supply 412 of the powdered material may provide any material suitable for use as a build material as contemplated herein, such as a sinterable powder of material selected for a final part to be formed from the object 416. The supply 412 and the spreader 404 may supply the powdered material to the powder bed 402, e.g., by lifting the powder 410 and displacing the powder to the powder bed 402 using the spreader 404, which may also spread the powdered material across the powder bed 402 in a substantially uniform layer for binding with the print head 406…”)
Shkolnik and Myerberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, manufacturing evaluation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the for each voxel, determining a distortion factor as disclosed by Shkolnik by caused by a powder density variation induced during a powder spreading process as disclosed by Myerberg.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the outcome of when using sinterable objects as discussed in [0004] by Myerberg “…Support structures are commonly used in additive manufacturing to expand the features available in fabricated object, e.g., by providing underlying structural support for overhangs or lengthy bridges of otherwise unsupported material. However, when additively manufacturing with materials that require additional processing such as debinding and sintering to form a final part, conventional support strategies and techniques may fail on multiple fronts, such as where support structures deform or shrink in patterns that do not match the supported object or where support structures sinter together with the supported object to form a single, inseparable structure. There remains a need for support techniques, materials, and strategies suitable for use with additively manufactured, sinterable objects…”
Regarding Claim 2: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 1 further comprising
Myerberg teaches the step of binder jetting additively manufacturing a part according to the pre-processed compensated part mesh. ([0123] Myerberg “…FIG. 4 shows an additive manufacturing system using binder jetting. As contemplated herein, binder jetting techniques can be used to deposit and bind metallic particles or the like in a net shape for debinding and sintering into a final part. Where support structures are required to mitigate deformation of the object during the debinding and/or sintering, an interface layer may be formed between the support structures and portions of the object in order to avoid bonding of the support structure to the object during sintering…”)
Regarding Claim 4: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 1 wherein
Shkolnik teaches the step of determining the distortion factor includes accounting for a density gap threshold that is a distance to a next upstream wall. ([0235] Shkolnik “…Second voxel data subset 584 may include each of the unconnected portions of first voxel data subset 582 and may also have additional regions beyond the unconnected portions so that the shrunk reactive material determined by first voxel data subset 582 is connected with. E.g., second voxel data subset 584 may have additional regions as being exposed to account for a shrinkage gaps between the ideal bitmaps and the shrunk material…”)
Regarding Claim 5: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 1
Shkolnik teaches wherein the step of determining the distortion factor includes accounting for a density height, wherein below a threshold a density buildup is zero. ([0259] Shkolnik “…FIG. 7D is an example of a two components being produced on a build surface using a dual pattern generator system. A first component 772 is being produced in the field 780 of a first pattern generator but also in part is being produced in an overlapping region 790 (i.e., between 728/736 and 726/728). A second component 77 4 is being produced in the field 782 of a second pattern generator but also in part is being produced in overlapping region 790…”)
Regarding Claim 7: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 2 wherein
Myerberg teaches the step of binder jetting additively manufacturing the part includes bi-directional binder jetting. ([0124] Myerberg “…In one aspect, the spreader 404 may be a bi-directional spreader configured to spread powder from the supply 412 in one direction, and from a second supply (not shown) on an opposing side of the powder bed 402 in a return direction in order to speed the processing time for individual layers…”)
Regarding Claim 8: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 7
Myerberg teaches wherein the bi-directional binder jetting includes spreading a first layer of build material powder in a first direction followed jetting a binder in a first predetermined pattern onto the first layer of build material powder and then spreading a second layer of build material powder in a second direction, opposite the first direction, followed by jetting the binder in a second predetermined pattern onto the second layer of build material powder. ([0124] Myerberg “…In general, a printer 400 for binder jetting may include a powder bed 402, a spreader 404 (e.g., a roller) movable across the powder bed 402, a print head 406 movable across the powder bed 402, and a controller 408 in electrical communication with the print head 406. The powder bed 402 can include, for example, a packed quantity of a powder 410 of microparticles of a first metal. The spreader 404 can be movable across the powder bed 402 to spread a layer of powder 410 from a supply 412 of a powdered material across the powder bed 402. In one aspect, the spreader 404 may be a bi-directional spreader configured to spread powder from the supply 412 in one direction, and from a second supply (not shown) on an opposing side of the powder bed 402 in a return direction in order to speed the processing time for individual layers…”)
Regarding Claim 9: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 8 wherein
Shkolnik teaches the distortion factor for each voxel is an average of two distortion factors. ([0172] Shkolnik “…Where some voxels 14 may appear to protrude upwardly and downwardly, they may actually interleave with other voxels ( e.g., below and above) to form the desired geometry for three-dimensional object 9. Such voxelization construction techniques may be superior to layer-based techniques in that the surface regions may be smoother and more accurate, the geometric accuracy of three-dimensional object 9 may be increased…”)
Regarding Claim 10: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 2 wherein
Myerberg teaches the binder jetting additively manufacturing includes, for each build layer, depositing a first layer of build material in a first direction and depositing a second layer of build material in a second direction, opposite the first direction, and depositing binder in a predetermined pattern. ([0124] Myerberg “…In general, a printer 400 for binder jetting may include a powder bed 402, a spreader 404 (e.g., a roller) movable across the powder bed 402, a print head 406 movable across the powder bed 402, and a controller 408 in electrical communication with the print head 406. The powder bed 402 can include, for example, a packed quantity of a powder 410 of microparticles of a first metal. The spreader 404 can be movable across the powder bed 402 to spread a layer of powder 410 from a supply 412 of a powdered material across the powder bed 402. In one aspect, the spreader 404 may be a bi-directional spreader configured to spread powder from the supply 412 in one direction, and from a second supply (not shown) on an opposing side of the powder bed 402 in a return direction in order to speed the processing time for individual layers…”)
Regarding Claim 11: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 10 wherein
Shkolnik teaches the distortion factor for each voxel is the maximum of two distortion factors. ([0281] Shkolnik “…FIG. 13 shows the build process of the system of FIG. 12 where pattern generator 102 projects pattern 152, the pattern at build surface 1240 being shown as pattern 1230. Pattern 1230 may include gray scaling for each voxel, shown here where the outer voxels are of maximum depth ( e.g., the depth being determined by the intensity as expressed by a grayscale value) and the inner voxels having a less than maximum grayscale value, which relates a less than maximum depth of the voxel…”)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shkolnik et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0125356 A1 (hereinafter ‘Shkolnik’) in view of
Myerberg et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0297111 A1 (hereinafter ‘Myerberg’) further in view of
Ravi et al., “Sintering stresses and distortion produced by density differences in bi-layer structures” [2006] (hereinafter ‘Ravi’).
Regarding Claim 6: Shkolnik and Myerberg teach The method of claim 1 wherein
Shkolnik and Myerberg do not appear to explicitly disclose
the at least one shrinkage coefficient for each voxel includes a first axis shrinkage coefficient, a second axis shrinkage coefficient and a third axis shrinkage coefficient.
PNG
media_image8.png
582
616
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Ravi teaches the at least one shrinkage coefficient for each voxel includes a first axis shrinkage coefficient, a second axis shrinkage coefficient and a third axis shrinkage coefficient. (Pg. 21 left col Fig. 4 and Section 3.2 “…The shrinkage measurements performed using the thermomechanical analyzer (TMA) are usually a measure of shrinkage in the z-direction (perpendicular to the casting plane). It is, therefore, important to have an idea of the degree of anisotropy in the samples and take this into account in the density calculations. The degree of anisotropy was investigated by measuring the x–y and z shrinkage in separate experiments and the results are plotted in Fig. 4…”)
Shkolnik, Myerberg, and Ravi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, manufacturing evaluation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the simulating a shrinkage of the grid of voxels according to a sintering process as disclosed by Shkolnik and Myerberg by at least one shrinkage coefficient for each voxel includes a first axis shrinkage coefficient, a second axis shrinkage coefficient and a third axis shrinkage coefficient as disclosed by Ravi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better correct for the shrinkage causing sintering stress as discussed in the abstract of Ravi “…The variations in green density that arise when a powder is consolidated gives rise to strain rate incompatibility between regions that can result in densification stresses and or warpage during sintering. In order to quantify the effect of the green density variations, the shrinkage behavior of model bi-layers with a tailored density difference was analyzed. The methodology previously developed for co-firing of layered structures was applied to bi-layers for the case in which the layers do not differ in composition but in density. Alumina tapes with green densities of 1.96 and 2.34 Mg/m3 were fabricated by tape casting and consolidated into bi-layers. The shrinkage characteristics of the individual layers were characterized and the uniaxial viscosity of the layers with the two starting densities were determined as a function of the degree of densification using cyclic loading dilatometry. The distortion in the bi-layer configurations was experimentally measured and was shown to be in good agreement with the analytical calculations…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Claims 12-18 have been withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights