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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prisco et al. (hereafter Prisco – US 20130018641).
Claim 1 recites “an apparatus.” Prisco teaches such an apparatus, as will be shown.
Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-9) an apparatus comprising:
a processor 104; and
a memory 104B on which is stored instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
access a digital design of a screen device having pores (porous medium, see abstract), wherein the screen device is to be employed to filter liquid from a slurry composed of the liquid and material elements to form a part from the material elements (abstract, para. 0037);
apply fluid dynamics modeling on the digital design of the screen device to model how the liquid is predicted to flow through the screen device during application of a pressure through the screen device, wherein the fluid dynamics modeling is applied on a plurality of digital designs of the screen device having various pore properties with respect to each other (para. 0045, claim 1); and
determine, based on the applied fluid dynamics modeling, the pore property of the various pore properties that is predicted to result in the part being formed to have an optimized attribute and/or the part being formed in a minimum length of time (para. 0060, 0063, claims 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-9) the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the various pore properties comprise sizes, numbers, and/or locations at which the pores are to be formed through the screen device (claim 11).
Regarding Claim 3, Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-9) the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fluid dynamics modeling is to model how the liquid is predicted to flow through the screen device as the material elements begin to block some of the pores during formation of the part (para. 0033).
Regarding Claim 4, Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-9) the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optimized attribute comprises an optimized accuracy level across the part and/or a minimized amount of material being used to form the part while the part is formed with a predefined accuracy level (para. 0102).
Regarding Claim 5, Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-9) the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to: cause three-dimensional (3D) fabrication components to fabricate the screen device to have pores that have the determined pore property (para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 6, Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-9) the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to: access a digital design of a main body 61 upon which the screen device 60 is to be positioned (see Fig. 3); apply the fluid dynamics modeling on the digital design of the screen device and the digital design of the main body to model how the slurry is predicted to flow across the screen device and the liquid is predicted to flow through the screen device and the main body during application of a pressure through the screen device and the main body (para. 0065); and determine, based on the applied fluid dynamics modeling, a property of openings to be formed through the main body that are to result in the part being formed to have the optimized attribute and/or the part being formed in the minimized length of time (para. 0065-0066).
Regarding Claim 7, Prisco teaches (Figs. 1-9) the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to: cause three-dimensional (3D) fabrication components to fabricate the main body to have openings that have the determined property of the openings (para. 0106).
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brans et al. (hereafter Brans – "Evaluation of microsieve membrane design", Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 278, No. 1-2, July 05, 2006, Pages 344-348.).
Claim 8 recites “a method.” Brans teaches such a method, as will be shown.
Brans teaches a method comprising:
accessing, by a processor, a digital design of a screen device having attributes that are to form matching attributes on a part (section 3: " The flow through micros i eves was analyzed with CFD computer simulations, in which the channel height was varied between 35 and 350 pm"; this implies the use of a computer and the use of a digital design model; the channel height ' is an "attribute" in the sense of the invention), wherein the part is to be formed from a slurry composed of a liquid and material elements (section 1: "In this paper, we focus on the design of the microsieve and relate this to the flux and deposition of particles from the feed onto the membrane);
applying, by the processor, a first fluid dynamics modeling on the digital design of the screen device with pores having a first property to model how liquid in a slurry composed of the liquid and material elements is predicted to flow through the pores having the first property during formation of a part on the screen device (section 3: "Different microsieve designs were used in this research. Microsieve A has round pores with a diameter of 1.2 pm; the porosity of the pore fields is 0 .49, and in total, the sieve has 8x10 pores. The flow through microsieves was analyzed with CFD computer simulations";
applying, by the processor, a second fluid dynamics modeling on the digital design of the screen device with the pores having a second property to model how the liquid in the slurry is predicted to flow through the pores having the second property during formation of the part (section 3: "Different microsieve designs were used in this research. Micros i eve B has an improved design with negligible resistance of the support structure (channel height > 350 pm). Because of limited freedom in micros i eve design, the microsieve has slit— shaped pores of 0. 8 pm x 2 .5 pm and pore field porosity 0. 4"); and
determining, by the processor, which of the digital designs of the screen device with the pores having the first property and the second property is predicted to result in the part being formed to have a superior attribute and/or the part being formed in a shorter length of time (abstract: "maximum possible flux" ; section 1 : "The flux was related to the exact microsieve design"; a higher flux through the sieve implies that the part is formed in a shorter length of time; Fig. 4 shows the computed flux for both types of filters).
Regarding Claim 9, Brans teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first property comprises a different pore size, a different number of pores, and/or different pore locations as compared with the second property (see section 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Brans teaches the method of claim 8, wherein applying the first fluid dynamics modeling and the second fluid dynamics modeling further comprises applying the first fluid dynamics modeling and the second fluid dynamics modeling on the digital design of the screen device to model how the liquid is predicted to flow through the screen device as the material elements begin to block some of the pores during formation of the part (see Fig. 3, section 4.2 pore blocking model).
Regarding Claim 11, Brans teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the attribute comprises an accuracy level across the part and/or a minimized amount of material being used to form the part while the part is formed with a predefined accuracy level (optional feature not required from claim 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Brans teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: controlling fabrication components to fabricate the screen device to have pores having one of the first property and the second property based on which of the screen devices with the pores having the first property or the second property is predicted to result in the part being formed to have the superior attribute and/or the part being formed in the shorter length of time (section 1: "Microsieves (Fig. 1) are microfiltration membranes manufactured with photolithographic techniques"; Table 2 shows experimental results, which imply the actual manufacturing of the filter; the controlling is implied).
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium which comprises features of claim 8 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium which comprises features of claim 9 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium which comprises features of claim 10 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745