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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4, 12-13, 17 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 20 was canceled. Claims 1-19 and 21 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous Specification objection has been withdrawn.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz et al. (US20200156323A1 -hereinafter Woytowitz) in view of Lalish et al. (US20170176979A1 -hereinafter Lalish) in view of Ilies et al. (US20190255771A1 -hereinafter Ilies).
Regarding Claim 1, Woytowitz teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object by generating a toolpath for …multi-axis deposition comprising: (see [0059]; Woytowitz: “The toolpath generator herein advantageously can enable creating fully 3D toolpaths… A full-3D path can be one where the print head moves and deposits material in all the X, Y, and Z directions simultaneously, in a single deposition path, e.g., FIGS. 8A-8B. This can be advantageous when printing parts with freeform surfaces (e.g. airplane wings, domes, propellers) and parts that require non-planar internal structures to achieve desired mechanical properties.” See Abstract: “Printing of the 3D object may be simulated using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object.”)
defining, by at least one computing device, one or more design criteria and one and one or more manufacturing constraints associated with 3D printing of an object; (see [0060]; Woytowitz: “After the initial FEA for structural strength analysis and topology optimization at operation 102, the process flow 100 may refine the optimization consistent with the tool path and any constraints associated with the 3D printing.” See [0064]: “The stopping criterion may be a threshold (e.g., a quality threshold). The stopping criterion may include uniformity in strain-energy density of the 3D object or model of the 3D object. The stopping criterion may be user-defined or automatically adjusted by a computer program.” See [0055]: “The toolpath may be generated and optimized taking into account the constraints associated with the 3D printing.”)
determining, by the at least one computing device, an optimized topology and a volumetric orientation field associated with an object geometry of the object based at least in part on the one or more design criteria and the one or more manufacturing constraints (see [0007]; Woytowitz: “The method of printing the 3D object may further comprise, subsequent to (a) and prior to (b), using the computer model and the strength or stress profile to obtain the topology of the 3D object. In some embodiments, obtaining the topology may comprise performing topology optimization.” See [0051]: “The topology optimization method may adopt any suitable constraints (e.g., maximum stress values, a pre-determined topology) for updating/optimizing towards the design goal.” See [0100]: “A volumetric mesh, is generated from the surface mesh so it can be simulated using FEA. Boundary conditions and loads that the object is expected to withstand are added to the volumetric mesh, as shown in FIG. 11B.”),
generating, by the at least one computing device, a toolpath for printing the object based at least in part on the optimized topology and the volumetric orientation field; and (see [0064]; Woytowitz: “With reference to FIG. 1, one or more operations may be iterated (e.g., operations 103-104 or operations 102-104) until a stopping criterion is met. When operations 102-104 are repeated, the optimized tool path, fiber orientation, and/or other information, such as geometric parameters are fed into operation 102 for updated FEA and topology optimization. The updated FEA and topology optimization can then be used again for strength-driven toolpath generation 103, and further toolpath optimization and/or fiber orientation optimization at operation 104 until a stopping criterion has been met.” See [0063]: “the 3D slicing algorithm may be applied to generate a 3D tool path on a curved surface, and/or 3D volume/region.” See [0100]: “the next operation is FEA analysis. A volumetric mesh, is generated from the surface mesh so it can be simulated using FEA. Boundary conditions and loads that the object is expected to withstand are added to the volumetric mesh, as shown in FIG. 11B”. See [0102]: “The toolpath generator then takes the results of the FEA analysis (e.g., stress vectors) and generates toolpaths based on the expected loads, as shown in FIG. 11D.”)
However, Woytowitz does not explicitly teach: … generating a toolpath for layer-less multi-axis deposition; the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry; and printing the 3D object on a 3D printer using layer-less multi-axis deposition based at least in part on the toolpath.
Lalish from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry; (see [0048]; Lalish: “Geometry generally refers to a set of geometric elements, such as a 3D polyhedron or other shape, which may represent an amount of extrudable material to be deposited. One example measure represents at least a portion of the geometry—and therefore, the amount of extrudable material—volumetrically. The example measure may define a portion of the geometry using standardized units in which each unit represents a minimal amount, e.g., volume, of colored material at a given time instance, such as by an extrusion width. Each geographic element may include one or more standardized units.” See [0049]: “The instruction set 212 may include instructions for automatically calibrating the platform 220 such that through a series of movements in an x, y, and z direction or in rotation across an x-y plane, the 3D object 210 is moved to a correct position for the nozzle 218 to deposit material.” See [0044]: “One example implementation of the first mechanism 204 moves a printing mechanism or tool across an x, y, or z-axis in order to deposit material at a specific position within the object 210 being fabricated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Woytowitz to include Lalish’s features of the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry. Doing so would improve the orientation of the 3D models and provide sufficient print quality. (Lalish, [0001] and [0010])
However, it does not explicitly teach: … generating a toolpath for layer-less multi-axis deposition; and printing the 3D object on a 3D printer using layer-less multi-axis deposition based at least in part on the toolpath.
Ilies from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
… generating a toolpath for layer-less multi-axis deposition; (see [0121]; Ilies: “FIGS. 18A-29C accompany the following description of a computational framework for computing the maximum build volume for given non-circular extruders and printing machines that have 2, 3 and perhaps higher number of degrees of freedom (DOF) …This formulation makes no assumption about the number of machine DOFs, nor about the planarity of the target contour, making it applicable to emerging AM technologies such as 6-axis printing with non-planar layers, and layer-less additive manufacturing.”)
and printing the 3D object on a 3D printer using layer-less multi-axis deposition based at least in part on the toolpath. (see [0116]-[0117]; Ilies: “FIGS. 9A-D illustrate an example of the expected output of the calculated path. Motion synthesis with an FDM 3D printer using three-dimensional non-planar layers with an elliptical extruder nozzle requires three inputs”. See [0111]: “Further to the three inputs described above, the system has the ability to calculate the principal directions for a set of points (i.e., tangent, normal, binormal) and the ability to calculate the medial axis of a set of points and the corresponding radial function.” See [0121]: “This formulation makes no assumption about the number of machine DOFs, nor about the planarity of the target contour, making it applicable to emerging AM technologies such as 6-axis printing with non-planar layers, and layer-less additive manufacturing.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Woytowitz and Lalish to include Ilies’s features of generating a toolpath for layer-less multi-axis deposition and printing the 3D object on a 3D printer using layer-less multi-axis deposition based at least in part on the toolpath. Doing so would achieve a consistent and unambiguous method of positioning the nozzle of the hot-end relative to an arbitrary 3D surface. (Ilies, [0080])
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Woytowitz further teaches wherein the one or more design criteria comprises at least one of a printing material, a thermal dissipation associated with the printing material, a printing material strength, a printing material weight, a printing material stiffness, or an electrical conductance associated with the printing material. (see [0007]; Woytowitz: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both. The strength or stress profile herein may comprise comparing the predicted stress to the measured strength of the material for printing the 3D object. The strength or stress profile herein may comprise a comparing the predicted or estimated stress to a calculated strength of the material… The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Woytowitz further teaches wherein the one or more manufacturing constraints are based at least in part on one or more characteristics associated with the 3D printer. (see [0051]; Woytowitz: “The topology optimization method may adopt any suitable constraints (e.g., maximum stress values, a pre-determined topology) for updating/optimizing towards the design goal.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Woytowitz teaches a system, comprising:
A three-dimensional (3D) printer; (see Abstract; Woytowitz: “a 3D printer”)
at least one computing device; and (see [0073]; Woytowitz: “The system may comprise a computer memory, GUI, and one or more computer processors operatively coupled to the computer memory.”)
at least one application executable on the at least one computing device, wherein, when executed the at least one application causes the at least one computing device to at least: (see [0088]; Woytowitz: “The machine executable or machine readable code can be provided in the form of software. During use, the code can be executed by the processor 1405. In some cases, the code can be retrieved from the storage unit 1415 and stored on the memory”)
define one or more design criteria associated with 3D printing of an object; (see [0060]; Woytowitz: “After the initial FEA for structural strength analysis and topology optimization at operation 102, the process flow 100 may refine the optimization consistent with the tool path and any constraints associated with the 3D printing.” See [0064]: “The stopping criterion may be a threshold (e.g., a quality threshold). The stopping criterion may include uniformity in strain-energy density of the 3D object or model of the 3D object. The stopping criterion may be user-defined or automatically adjusted by a computer program.” See [0055]: “The toolpath may be generated and optimized taking into account the constraints associated with the 3D printing.”)
determine an optimized topology and a volumetric orientation field associated with an object geometry of the object based at least in part on the one or more design criteria and the one or more manufacturing constraints (see [0007]; Woytowitz: “The method of printing the 3D object may further comprise, subsequent to (a) and prior to (b), using the computer model and the strength or stress profile to obtain the topology of the 3D object. In some embodiments, obtaining the topology may comprise performing topology optimization.” See [0051]: “The topology optimization method may adopt any suitable constraints (e.g., maximum stress values, a pre-determined topology) for updating/optimizing towards the design goal.” See [0100]: “A volumetric mesh, is generated from the surface mesh so it can be simulated using FEA. Boundary conditions and loads that the object is expected to withstand are added to the volumetric mesh, as shown in FIG. 11B.”),
generate an ordered toolpath for printing the object based at least in part on the volumetric orientation field and the material distribution; and (see [0064]; Woytowitz: “With reference to FIG. 1, one or more operations may be iterated (e.g., operations 103-104 or operations 102-104) until a stopping criterion is met. When operations 102-104 are repeated, the optimized tool path, fiber orientation, and/or other information, such as geometric parameters are fed into operation 102 for updated FEA and topology optimization. The updated FEA and topology optimization can then be used again for strength-driven toolpath generation 103, and further toolpath optimization and/or fiber orientation optimization at operation 104 until a stopping criterion has been met.” See [0063]: “the 3D slicing algorithm may be applied to generate a 3D tool path on a curved surface, and/or 3D volume/region.” See [0100]: “the next operation is FEA analysis. A volumetric mesh, is generated from the surface mesh so it can be simulated using FEA. Boundary conditions and loads that the object is expected to withstand are added to the volumetric mesh, as shown in FIG. 11B”. See [0102]: “The toolpath generator then takes the results of the FEA analysis (e.g., stress vectors) and generates toolpaths based on the expected loads, as shown in FIG. 11D.”)
However, Woytowitz does not explicitly teach: the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry; and print the object using a layer-less multi-axis deposition based at least in part on the ordered toolpath via the 3D printer.
Lalish from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry; (see [0048]; Lalish: “Geometry generally refers to a set of geometric elements, such as a 3D polyhedron or other shape, which may represent an amount of extrudable material to be deposited. One example measure represents at least a portion of the geometry—and therefore, the amount of extrudable material—volumetrically. The example measure may define a portion of the geometry using standardized units in which each unit represents a minimal amount, e.g., volume, of colored material at a given time instance, such as by an extrusion width. Each geographic element may include one or more standardized units.” See [0049]: “The instruction set 212 may include instructions for automatically calibrating the platform 220 such that through a series of movements in an x, y, and z direction or in rotation across an x-y plane, the 3D object 210 is moved to a correct position for the nozzle 218 to deposit material.” See [0044]: “One example implementation of the first mechanism 204 moves a printing mechanism or tool across an x, y, or z-axis in order to deposit material at a specific position within the object 210 being fabricated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Woytowitz to include Lalish’s features of the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry. Doing so would improve the orientation of the 3D models and provide sufficient print quality. (Lalish, [0001] and [0010])
However, it does not explicitly teach: and print the object using a layer-less multi-axis deposition based at least in part on the ordered toolpath via the 3D printer.
Ilies from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches and print the object using a layer-less multi-axis deposition based at least in part on the ordered toolpath via the 3D printer. (see [0116]-[0117]; Ilies: “FIGS. 9A-D illustrate an example of the expected output of the calculated path. Motion synthesis with an FDM 3D printer using three-dimensional non-planar layers with an elliptical extruder nozzle requires three inputs”. See [0111]: “Further to the three inputs described above, the system has the ability to calculate the principal directions for a set of points (i.e., tangent, normal, binormal) and the ability to calculate the medial axis of a set of points and the corresponding radial function.” See [0121]: “This formulation makes no assumption about the number of machine DOFs, nor about the planarity of the target contour, making it applicable to emerging AM technologies such as 6-axis printing with non-planar layers, and layer-less additive manufacturing.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Woytowitz and Lalish to include Ilies’s features of print the object using a layer-less multi-axis deposition based at least in part on the ordered toolpath via the 3D printer. Doing so would achieve a consistent and unambiguous method of positioning the nozzle of the hot-end relative to an arbitrary 3D surface. (Ilies, [0080])
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, Woytowitz teaches a method, comprising:
determining, via at least one computing device, a material distribution and a volumetric orientation field associated with an optimized topology for an object geometry of an object, (see [0007]; Woytowitz: “The method of printing the 3D object may further comprise, subsequent to (a) and prior to (b), using the computer model and the strength or stress profile to obtain the topology of the 3D object. In some embodiments, obtaining the topology may comprise performing topology optimization.” See [0051]: “The topology optimization method may adopt any suitable constraints (e.g., maximum stress values, a pre-determined topology) for updating/optimizing towards the design goal.” See [0100]: “A volumetric mesh, is generated from the surface mesh so it can be simulated using FEA. Boundary conditions and loads that the object is expected to withstand are added to the volumetric mesh, as shown in FIG. 11B.”)
generating, via the at least one computing device, an ordered toolpath associated with the object geometry based at least in part on the volumetric orientation field and the material distribution; and (see [0064]; Woytowitz: “With reference to FIG. 1, one or more operations may be iterated (e.g., operations 103-104 or operations 102-104) until a stopping criterion is met. When operations 102-104 are repeated, the optimized tool path, fiber orientation, and/or other information, such as geometric parameters are fed into operation 102 for updated FEA and topology optimization. The updated FEA and topology optimization can then be used again for strength-driven toolpath generation 103, and further toolpath optimization and/or fiber orientation optimization at operation 104 until a stopping criterion has been met.” See [0063]: “the 3D slicing algorithm may be applied to generate a 3D tool path on a curved surface, and/or 3D volume/region.” See [0100]: “the next operation is FEA analysis. A volumetric mesh, is generated from the surface mesh so it can be simulated using FEA. Boundary conditions and loads that the object is expected to withstand are added to the volumetric mesh, as shown in FIG. 11B”. See [0102]: “The toolpath generator then takes the results of the FEA analysis (e.g., stress vectors) and generates toolpaths based on the expected loads, as shown in FIG. 11D.”)
However, Woytowitz does not explicitly teach: the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry; and printing the object via a multi-axis, layer-less printer based at least in part on the ordered toolpath.
Lalish from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry; (see [0048]; Lalish: “Geometry generally refers to a set of geometric elements, such as a 3D polyhedron or other shape, which may represent an amount of extrudable material to be deposited. One example measure represents at least a portion of the geometry—and therefore, the amount of extrudable material—volumetrically. The example measure may define a portion of the geometry using standardized units in which each unit represents a minimal amount, e.g., volume, of colored material at a given time instance, such as by an extrusion width. Each geographic element may include one or more standardized units.” See [0049]: “The instruction set 212 may include instructions for automatically calibrating the platform 220 such that through a series of movements in an x, y, and z direction or in rotation across an x-y plane, the 3D object 210 is moved to a correct position for the nozzle 218 to deposit material.” See [0044]: “One example implementation of the first mechanism 204 moves a printing mechanism or tool across an x, y, or z-axis in order to deposit material at a specific position within the object 210 being fabricated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Woytowitz to include Lalish’s features of the volumetric orientation field comprising a set of deposition directions and tool orientations at each point in the object geometry. Doing so would improve the orientation of the 3D models and provide sufficient print quality. (Lalish, [0001] and [0010])
However, it does not explicitly teach: and printing the object via a multi-axis, layer-less printer based at least in part on the ordered toolpath.
Ilies from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches and printing the object via a multi-axis, layer-less printer based at least in part on the ordered toolpath. (see [0116]-[0117]; Ilies: “FIGS. 9A-D illustrate an example of the expected output of the calculated path. Motion synthesis with an FDM 3D printer using three-dimensional non-planar layers with an elliptical extruder nozzle requires three inputs”. See [0111]: “Further to the three inputs described above, the system has the ability to calculate the principal directions for a set of points (i.e., tangent, normal, binormal) and the ability to calculate the medial axis of a set of points and the corresponding radial function.” See [0121]: “This formulation makes no assumption about the number of machine DOFs, nor about the planarity of the target contour, making it applicable to emerging AM technologies such as 6-axis printing with non-planar layers, and layer-less additive manufacturing.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Woytowitz and Lalish to include Ilies’s features of printing the object via a multi-axis, layer-less printer based at least in part on the ordered toolpath. Doing so would achieve a consistent and unambiguous method of positioning the nozzle of the hot-end relative to an arbitrary 3D surface. (Ilies, [0080])
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above, Woytowitz further teaches comprising defining one or more design criteria and one or more manufacturing constraints associated with the printing of the object. (see [0060]; Woytowitz: “After the initial FEA for structural strength analysis and topology optimization at operation 102, the process flow 100 may refine the optimization consistent with the tool path and any constraints associated with the 3D printing.” See [0064]: “The stopping criterion may be a threshold (e.g., a quality threshold). The stopping criterion may include uniformity in strain-energy density of the 3D object or model of the 3D object. The stopping criterion may be user-defined or automatically adjusted by a computer program.” See [0055]: “The toolpath may be generated and optimized taking into account the constraints associated with the 3D printing.”)
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies teaches all the limitations of claim 18 above, Woytowitz further teaches further comprising applying the one or more design criteria and the one or more manufacturing constraints to an optimized topology algorithm, the material distribution and the volumetric orientation field being an output of the optimized topology algorithm. (see [0007]; Woytowitz: “The method of printing the 3D object may further comprise, subsequent to (a) and prior to (b), using the computer model and the strength or stress profile to obtain the topology of the 3D object. In some embodiments, obtaining the topology may comprise performing topology optimization.” See [0051]: “The topology optimization method may adopt any suitable constraints (e.g., maximum stress values, a pre-determined topology) for updating/optimizing towards the design goal.”)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz in view of Lalish in view of Ilies in view of Kubalak et al. (NPL: “Exploring multi-axis material extrusion additive manufacturing for improving mechanical properties of printed parts” (20018) -hereinafter Kubalak) in view of Chen et al. (NPL: “Additive Manufacturing without Layers: A New Solid Freeform Fabrication Process based on CNC Accumulation” -hereinafter Chen)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein generating the toolpath comprises defining, by the at least one computing device, a plurality of roads and a plurality of build directions corresponding to the plurality of roads, the plurality of roads and the plurality of build directions being defined according to the object geometry of the object, and the plurality of the roads being defined to follow the volumetric orientation field, wherein the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head.
Kubalak from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches generating the toolpath comprises defining, by the at least one computing device, a plurality of roads and a plurality of build directions corresponding to the plurality of roads (see Abstract, fourth paragraph; Kubalak: “Multi-axis deposition strategies could enable local changes in layering and deposition directions to more optimally orient roads in critical areas of the part.”), the plurality of roads and the plurality of build directions being defined according to the object geometry of the object (see second page, right column, lines 3-5; Kubalak: “For parts with simple loading conditions, such as tensile specimens, part geometry can be globally reoriented such that the load paths travel along deposited roads.” See page 7, left column, third paragraph: “With typical 3-DoF deposition, parts have to be globally oriented on the build platform to align deposited roads with loads. For simple loading conditions, a part might have a global orientation such that all of the load paths travel along deposited roads;”), and the plurality of the roads being defined to follow the volumetric orientation field. (see page 6, right column, second paragraph; Kubalak: “By reorienting the roads locally in a part, only an optimal orientation suitable for the local region is required. The results in Figure 4 show that Ahn’s rule can be extended into all three dimensions. At any orientation, tensile loads should still be carried axially by the roads.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies to include Kubalak’s features of generating the toolpath comprises defining, by the at least one computing device, a plurality of roads and a plurality of build directions corresponding to the plurality of roads, the plurality of roads and the plurality of build directions being defined according to the object geometry of the object, and the plurality of the roads being defined to follow the volumetric orientation field. Doing so would explore the impact of changing the build direction and deposition angle on the resulting tensile mechanical properties. (Kubalak, page 3, left column last paragraph)
However, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head.
Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head. (see page 109, second and last paragraphs; Chen: “Hence for a given work piece (W) and tool path (Si) with tool orientation in each cutter location (Oj), the constructed shape (M) will be M = W - ∪(T )Si+ Oj… hence the tool is capable of curing resin in various orientations.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, and Kubalak to include Chen’s features of the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head. Doing so would achieve desired movements between accumulation tools and built parts. (Chen, page 120, second paragraph)
Claim(s) 5-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz in view of Lalish in view of Ilie in view of Kubalak in view of Ahlers et al. (NPL: “3D Printing of Nonplanar Layers for Smooth Surface Generation” -hereinafter Ahlers).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, and Kubalak teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein generating the toolpath further comprises determining, by the at least one computing device, a collision-free order for depositing the plurality of roads.
Ahlers from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein generating the toolpath further comprises determining, by the at least one computing device, a collision-free order for depositing the plurality of roads. (see Abstract; Ahlers: “Our slicing algorithm automatically detects which parts of the object should be printed with nonplanar layers and uses a geometric model of the printhead and extruder to generate collision-free toolpaths.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, and Kubalak to include Ahlers’s features of generating the toolpath further comprises determining, by the at least one computing device, a collision-free order for depositing the plurality of roads. Doing so would improve interlayer bonding and the surface smoothness. (Ahlers, page 6, first paragraph and page 7, third paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Ahlers teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, Ahlers further teaches wherein determining the collision-free order is based at least in part on one or more precedence constraints, a road continuity factor, and a minimization of deposition head movement. (see page 5, right column, last paragraph; Ahlers: “Collisions can also occur when traveling from or to a point which lies below the highest printed layer as illustrated in Fig. 8 (left). A simple way to avoid these collisions is to always lift up the printhead to the current maximum printing height, travel the to the desired position and lower the printhead again (Fig. 8 (right)). Because travels also occur when switching from one perimeter to another, and because it is very unlikely that collisions occur on very short paths, all travel moves that are shorter than 2×extrusion-width are traveled directly without lifting the printhead. For all other travel movements, the printhead is lifted even if no collision would occur.”)
The same motivation to combine Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Ahlers a set forth for Claim 5 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Ahlers teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, Ahlers further teaches wherein determining the collision-free order further comprises at least one of reorienting build directions of unordered roads or removing one or more unordered roads in response to failing to identify at least one collision-free road. (see page 2, right column, first paragraph; Ahlers: “To ensure that none of the surfaces exceed the nonplanar-height, each surface is checked whether the difference between the minimum and the maximum height of all facets is greater than the nonplanar-height. All surfaces which exceed this limit are removed from the nonplanar surfaces list. Since this approach also finds small areas that sometimes only contain one facet, all surfaces with a surface area smaller than 20mm2 are also removed from the list. Although each area itself is not causing collisions while printing, the extruder can collide with previously printed structures close to the nonplanar surface. In a final step, each surface that causes a collision is also removed from the list of potential nonplanar surfaces. The object collision avoidance with other regions of the object is explicated in detail in section V.”)
The same motivation to combine Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Ahlers a set forth for Claim 5 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Ahlers as discussed connection with claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Ahlers as discussed connection with claim 6.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz in view of Lalish in view of Ilies in view of Kubalak in view of Ahlers in view of Eberst et al. (US20210086359A1 -hereinafter Eberst).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Ahlers teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein determining the collision-free order further comprises identifying a subset of collision-free roads based at least in part on a comparison of a respective collision volume for a given road with the respective volume for all roads, the collision-free order being based at least in part on the identified subset of collision-free roads.
Eberst from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein determining the collision-free order further comprises identifying a subset of collision-free roads based at least in part on a comparison of a respective collision volume for a given road with the respective volume for all roads, the collision-free order being based at least in part on the identified subset of collision-free roads. (see [0027]; Eberst: “The robot paths are planned in orientation to each workpiece in an offline programming environment (OLP environment) and the processing results are simulated, as are the movements of the robot in order to verify that there is no danger of collision.” See [0032]: “The individual steps/levels in the generation of a robot program that are shown in FIG. 3 are (among others): (S1) determining the path of the tool on the workpiece, (S2) simulating the processing results of the workpiece (that is, for example, the painting results), (S3) simulating the collision risks of the robot (and tool) when the determined tool paths are followed and (S4) determining or planning the sequence (in space and time) of the collision-free robot movements needed to follow the tool paths and the intermediate movements needed between the individual tool paths.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Ahlers to include Eberst’s features of determining the collision-free order further comprises identifying a subset of collision-free roads based at least in part on a comparison of a respective collision volume for a given road with the respective volume for all roads, the collision-free order being based at least in part on the identified subset of collision-free roads. Doing so would reduce the needed programming time while producing more reliable results. (Eberst, [0039])
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz in view of Lalish in view of Ilies in view of Mirzendehdel et al. (NPL: “Support structure constrained topology optimization for additive manufacturing” (2016) -hereinafter Mirzendehdel).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising defining, by the at least one computing device, a support structure based at least in part on the optimized topology and the volumetric orientation field, wherein defining the support structure comprises identifying one or more unsupported regions in the object geometry of the object, the support structure being defined according to the one or more unsupported regions in the object geometry.
Mirzendehdel from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising defining, by the at least one computing device, a support structure based at least in part on the optimized topology and the volumetric orientation field (see page 1, right column, last paragraph; Mirzendehdel: “develop a topology optimization TO methodology for limiting the support structure volume”. See page 2, left column, third paragraph: “More recently, Das et al. [22] identified optimal build orientation with respect to tolerance errors and support structure volume by extracting product manufacturing information. Alternate approaches for selecting build-direction include optimizing post-build quality and perception [23], and increased (cross-sectional) mechanical strength.” See page 5, section 3.4: “Topological sensitivity is the rate of performance change of any quantity of interest ᵠ with respect to the volumetric measure of the hole.”), wherein defining the support structure comprises identifying one or more unsupported regions in the object geometry of the object, the support structure being defined according to the one or more unsupported regions in the object geometry. (see page 3, right column, third paragraph; Mirzendehdel: “Support structure generation in AM is based on the overhang concept which states that if the angle between the boundary normal and the build direction exceeds a certain threshold, then support structures are needed at that point. For instance, for the design and the build-direction illustrated in Fig. 5(a), the subtended angle is illustrated in Fig. 5(b). Given a threshold
α
ˆ
(typically around 135°), boundary points with
α
>
α
ˆ
are considered overhanging, and require support, as illustrated in Fig. 5(c); For simplicity, vertical support structures are assumed in this paper; support structures may terminate at the platform or at any opposing non-overhanging point. The union of all such support structures results in a support volume as illustrated in Fig. 5(d). The fill-ratio, i.e., material density, of support structures is typically less than that of the primary design.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies to include Mirzendehdel’s features of defining, by the at least one computing device, a support structure based at least in part on the optimized topology and the volumetric orientation field, wherein defining the support structure comprises identifying one or more unsupported regions in the object geometry of the object, the support structure being defined according to the one or more unsupported regions in the object geometry. Doing so would maximize performance, subject to support structure constraints. (Mirzendehdel, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, and Mirzendehdel teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above, Woytowitz further teaches wherein the optimized topology aligns a material strength of a printing material with one or more anticipated load paths associated with the object geometry. (see [0071]; Woytowitz: “FIGS. 12A-12C show with discontinuous fiber material printed using an FDM process, one can align the fibers in a preferred orientation (e.g., horizontal in FIGS. 12A-12C). When printing continuous fibers, the fiber orientation can be aligned as desired. This alignment may produce anisotropic material properties and both the stiffness and strength of the material may depend upon the print direction. For high performance composite parts such a feature can be advantageous. When the internal stresses are large, the parts in the direction of printing may be stiffened or strengthened. In regions where the stresses are low, the amount of material may be reduced using a sparse infill. Examples of different sparse infill patterns available are shown in FIGS. 13A-13C. Table 1 presents representative sample mechanical properties in the fiber and transverse directions for discontinuous and continuous fiber material. The differences between property measurements for the continuous fiber material are greater than that of the discontinuous fiber material.”)
The same motivation to combine Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, and Mirzendehdel a set forth for Claim 9 equally applies to Claim 10.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz in view of Lalish in view of Ilies in view of Peters (US20190286092A1 -hereinafter Peters).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Woytowitz does not explicitly teach wherein the volumetric orientation field is bi-directional.
Peters from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the volumetric orientation field is bi-directional. (see [0147]; Peters: “The illustrative examples present a method for generating continuous alternating curved transitions with mixed bi-directional tool paths. The tool path method generates a high quality surface, improved distortion properties, and an alternating transition area during ISF operations that increases efficiency. The toolpath method can adapt to complex design geometry with bi-directional capability and provide an optimal transition method in a single algorithm.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies to include Peters’s features of the volumetric orientation field is bi-directional. Doing so would improve surface quality and achieve desired quality of incrementally formed workpieces. (Peters, [0004] and [0037])
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz in view of Lalish in view of Ilies in view of Mirzendehdel et al. (NPL: “Support structure constrained topology optimization for additive manufacturing” (2016) -hereinafter Mirzendehdel) in view of Kubalak et al. (NPL: “Exploring multi-axis material extrusion additive manufacturing for improving mechanical properties of printed parts” (20018) -hereinafter Kubalak) in view of Chen et al. (NPL: “Additive Manufacturing without Layers: A New Solid Freeform Fabrication Process based on CNC Accumulation” -hereinafter Chen).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, and Ilies teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein generating the order toolpath further comprises:
defining a support structure based at least in part on the object geometry, the material distribution, and the volumetric orientation field; and
defining a plurality of roads and a plurality of build directions corresponding to the plurality of roads, the plurality of roads and the plurality of build directions being defined according to the object geometry and the support structure, and the plurality of the roads being defined to follow the volumetric orientation field, wherein the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head.
Mirzendehdel from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches defining a support structure based at least in part on the object geometry, the material distribution, and the volumetric orientation field; (see page 1, right column, last paragraph; Mirzendehdel: “develop a topology optimization TO methodology for limiting the support structure volume”. See page 2, left column, third paragraph: “More recently, Das et al. [22] identified optimal build orientation with respect to tolerance errors and support structure volume by extracting product manufacturing information. Alternate approaches for selecting build-direction include optimizing post-build quality and perception [23], and increased (cross-sectional) mechanical strength”)
The same motivation to combine Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, and Mirzendehdel a set forth for Claim 9 equally applies to Claim 13.
However, it does not explicitly teach: defining a plurality of roads and a plurality of build directions corresponding to the plurality of roads, the plurality of roads and the plurality of build directions being defined according to the object geometry and the support structure, and the plurality of the roads being defined to follow the volumetric orientation field, wherein the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head.
Kubalak from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches : defining a plurality of roads and a plurality of build directions corresponding to the plurality of roads (see Abstract, fourth paragraph; Kubalak: “Multi-axis deposition strategies could enable local changes in layering and deposition directions to more optimally orient roads in critical areas of the part.”), the plurality of roads and the plurality of build directions being defined according to the object geometry and the support structure (see second page, right column, lines 3-5; Kubalak: “For parts with simple loading conditions, such as tensile specimens, part geometry can be globally reoriented such that the load paths travel along deposited roads.” See page 7, left column, third paragraph: “With typical 3-DoF deposition, parts have to be globally oriented on the build platform to align deposited roads with loads. For simple loading conditions, a part might have a global orientation such that all of the load paths travel along deposited roads;”), and the plurality of the roads being defined to follow the orientation field. (see page 6, right column, second paragraph; Kubalak: “By reorienting the roads locally in a part, only an optimal orientation suitable for the local region is required. The results in Figure 4 show that Ahn’s rule can be extended into all three dimensions. At any orientation, tensile loads should still be carried axially by the roads.”)
The same motivation to combine Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Mirzendehdel, and Kubalak a set forth for Claim 4 equally applies to Claim 13.
However, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head.
Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head. (see page 109, second and last paragraphs; Chen: “Hence for a given work piece (W) and tool path (Si) with tool orientation in each cutter location (Oj), the constructed shape (M) will be M = W - ∪(T )Si+ Oj… hence the tool is capable of curing resin in various orientations.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Mirzendehdel, and Kubalak to include Chen’s features of the plurality of build directions represent a plurality of orientations of a deposition head. Doing so would achieve desired movements between accumulation tools and built parts. (Chen, page 120, second paragraph)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz in view of Lalish in view of Ilies in view of Kubalak et al. (NPL: “Exploring multi-axis material extrusion additive manufacturing for improving mechanical properties of printed parts” (20018) -hereinafter Kubalak) in view of Chen et al. (NPL: “Additive Manufacturing without Layers: A New Solid Freeform Fabrication Process based on CNC Accumulation” -hereinafter Chen) in view of Shapiro et al. (US20180052445A1 -hereinafter Shapiro).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein a respective build direction of a respective road from the plurality of roads is perpendicular to the respective road.
Shapiro from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein a respective build direction of a respective road from the plurality of roads is perpendicular to the respective road. (see [0031]; Shapiro: “The roads 610 can be printed along any direction within a particular layer while remaining perpendicular to the build direction.” See [0036]: “When a material tensor is queried at a point, both the point and the relevant roads 610 are simply projected onto the horizontal x-y plane of the layer (i.e., perpendicular to the build direction).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Woytowitz, Lalish, Ilies, Kubalak, and Chen to include Shapiro’s features of wherein a respective build direction of a respective road from the plurality of roads is perpendicular to the respective road. Doing so would allow optimization of the actual 3D printed manufactured structures. (Shapiro, [0075])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) of the independent claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahsan (NPL: “Study on the Relationship between Process Plan and Resource Requirement in Additive Manufacturing”) discloses among the virtual strategies, build direction/orientation and material deposition direction steps are specially considered and the feature characteristics that are tied with them are identified in this work.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117