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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 11-12 have been amended. Claims 1-12 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 07/09/2026. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered; but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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) 1-4, 6, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiener et al. (DE102016216839A1 -hereinafter Kiener -Note: As the machine translation attached) in view of Glaser et al. (US20220266492A1 -hereinafter Glaser).
Regarding Claim 1, Kiener teaches:
A method for separating excess material from an additively manufactured component (see [0001]; Kiener: “a method for discharging filler material from a cavity present in a component”), the method comprising:
a) receiving spatially resolved structure data of the component; (see [0012]; Kiener: “The data set for producing the additive component is also suitable in principle for being used for calculating the positioning or position (these terms are used interchangeably) of the component and the subsequent movement sequence”)
e) simulating, using the structure data, an emptying procedure of the virtual material from the component for spatial orientations restricted to the discrete pattern, with a temporal sequence of orientations that are restricted to the discrete pattern being ascertained; (see [0013]; Kiener: “According to an advantageous embodiment of the invention, it is provided that the discharge of the filler material is simulated by the computer program, wherein the flow properties of the filler material are taken into account in the simulation. In this case, simulations are carried out repeatedly with different positionings and/or different sequences of movements, wherein at the end the positioning and the sequence of movements at which and in which most or all of the filler material is discharged from the components in the shortest time are selected.” See [0035]: “FIG. 2 shows the process sequence for discharging the filling material 32. The component 13 is shown in the calculated positioning I with which the movement sequence begins. The cavity 25 is an elongated channel, wherein a remaining state in the positioning I with simultaneous introduction of the oscillations 31 results in the filling material 32 being discharged up to a first section 33 from the connecting opening 24 by supporting the force of gravity g. The component is then brought into an intermediate position II by a quarter turn (indicated in FIG. 2 ), so that the material runs down to a section 34 into the arcuate section 99 of the cavity 25 lying in front of it. However, it remains there, so that the component 13 must be rotated back into an intermediate positioning III, which corresponds to the positioning I. Now, the filler material 25 is discharged from the arcuate portion 99 through the communication opening 24. At the same time, the filling material can flow down from the last sack-shaped section. Repeating the last two movements into an intermediate positioning IV (corresponds to II) and back into an intermediate positioning V (corresponds to I and III) results in the last remainder of the filling material 25 also being discharged.”)
f) successively rotating the component into the orientations of the temporal sequence on the basis of the simulated emptying procedure. (see [0022]; Kiener: “The output interface of the computer program is then connected, for example, to a controller for a robot, which first fixes the component to be emptied in a calculated position and then carries out a movement according to the calculated movement sequence. In this case, the component passes through a specific space curve (trajectory), which can be composed of pivoting movements and tumbling movements. It is also possible for the component to remain in certain intermediate positions for a certain period of time in order to allow the filling material time to pass through a certain section of the cavity in the direction of the connection opening.”)
However, Kiener does not explicitly teach: b) dividing, using the structure data, a cavity in the component into grid cells by way of a virtual spatial grid, with a spatial alignment of the grid relative to the component being specified by an alignment specification; c) ascertaining a discrete pattern of spatial orientations of the component on a basis of the alignment specification; d) filling the grid cells of the cavity with a virtual material in a simulation;
Glaser from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
b) dividing, using the structure data, a cavity in the component into grid cells by way of a virtual spatial grid (see Abstract; Glaser: “a computer-implemented method for simulating a filling process of a mold cavity in an injection molding process using a plastic material, the method including: i) discretizing at least a part of the mold cavity into a plurality of cells;”. See [0210]: “Additionally or alternatively, the interface 140 may be configured for outputting information related to a simulation result, such as a visualization 142.”), with a spatial alignment of the grid relative to the component being specified by an alignment specification; (see [0032]; Glaser: “Thus, the cell coordinate system may be a Cartesian coordinate system comprising three principal directions aligned at right angles to each other,”)
c) ascertaining a discrete pattern of spatial orientations of the component on a basis of the alignment specification; (see [0209]; Glaser: “the information contained in the database 128 may comprise one or both of simulated data or empirically retrieved data on fiber orientation, specifically for a fiber-reinforced plastic material for the dummy elements 130.”)
d) filling the grid cells of the cavity with a virtual material in a simulation; (see [0211]; Glaser: “The computer-implemented method 136 for simulating a filling process of a mold cavity 112 in an injection molding process using a plastic material, specifically the simulation method 136, comprises the following steps, which may specifically be performed in the given order.”)
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 Kiener to include Glaser’s features of dividing, using the structure data, a cavity in the component into grid cells by way of a virtual spatial grid, with a spatial alignment of the grid relative to the component being specified by an alignment specification; ascertaining a discrete pattern of spatial orientations of the component on the basis of the alignment specification; filling the grid cells of the cavity with a virtual material in a simulation. Doing so would minimize production costs and waste. (Glaser, [0002])
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kiener and Glaser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Kiener further teaches wherein the component is rotated into the orientations of the temporal sequence and/or made to mechanically vibrate by a movement apparatus. (see [0034]; Kiener: “In addition, the controller CRL may drive a vibration generator 30 to which the bracket 16 is attached. As also shown in FIG. 2, the component 13 can be set into oscillations 31 (cf. FIG. 2), preferably in the ultrasonic range, via the oscillation generator 30, in order to assist the discharge of the filling material 31.”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kiener and Glaser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Glaser further teaches wherein a respective movement step of the simulation is restricted to discrete movements of the virtual material from a respective grid cell to an adjacent grid cell. (see [0057]; Glaser: “The method may further comprise determining a cell-filling sequence using information on the neighboring cells. In particular, information on the neighboring cells gathered by determining the neighboring cells for each individual cell of the plurality of cells may be used for determining the cell-filling sequence. In particular, the cell-filling sequence may start with a starting cell, wherein the starting cell is located at the cavity injection point.” See [0056]: “In particular, the neighboring cell to an individual cell of the plurality of cells may be a cell located adjacent from the individual cell.”)
The same motivation to combine Kiener and Glaser a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kiener and Glaser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Glaser further teaches wherein a movement direction of the virtual material in the simulation is restricted to directions leading from a respective grid cell to an adjacent grid cell. (see [0058]; Glaser: “The method may further comprise a recursive determination of an inflow of a molten mass of the plastic material from neighboring cells for each individual cell. Thus, in particular, for each individual cell of the plurality of cells, the inflow of the molten mass of the plastic material from its neighboring cells may be determined recursively. As an example, balances of masses or mass flow may be calculated iteratively.”)
The same motivation to combine Kiener and Glaser a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kiener and Glaser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Glaser further teaches wherein directions leading from a grid cell to adjacent grid cells are included in the discrete pattern of spatial orientations. (see [0235]; Glaser: “In particular, FIG. 10 may show a topological approach of the filling process, specifically of a molten mass of the plastic material filling the mold cavity 112 starting at a cavity injection point 114 and spreading from one cell 116, specifically from a starting cell 182, to its neighboring cells 184 as indicated by arrows within FIG. 9.”)
The same motivation to combine Kiener and Glaser a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Kiener and Glaser as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Kiener and Glaser as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Kiener and Glaser as discussed connection with claim 1.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiener in view of Glaser in view of Yang et al. (CN103336858A -hereinafter Yang -Note: as the machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kiener and Glaser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the simulation is carried out by means of a grid-based three-dimensional cellular automaton.
Yang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the simulation is carried out by means of a grid-based three-dimensional cellular automaton. (see page 1, last paragraph and page 2, first paragraph; Yang: “The three-dimensional cellular automaton model of the etching process shown in Figure 1 divides the simulation area (Length × Width × Height) into a set of cube lattices with side length a. Each cubic lattice is called a cell, which is the most basic operation unit of the cellular automaton and the basic object of etching and deposition.”)
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 Kiener and Glaser to include Yang’s features of the simulation is carried out by means of a grid-based three-dimensional cellular automaton. Doing so would reduce the cell scale and increase the resolution of the simulation area. (Yang, page 2, second paragraph)
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiener et al. (DE102016216839A1 -hereinafter Kiener -Note: As the machine translation attached) in view of Glaser et al. (US20220266492A1 -hereinafter Glaser) in view of Steinberg et al. (US20200306860A1 -hereinafter Steinberg).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kiener and Glaser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the discrete pattern is formed by spatial orientations whose angular values are substantially discretized in 45° steps.
Steinberg from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the discrete pattern is formed by spatial orientations whose angular values are substantially discretized in 45° steps. (see [0059]; Steinberg: “The edges of each layer may include an overhang or a portion of one or more deposited cells 40 that is unsupported by the layer directly below. An overhang degree may be measured between a line or vector normal direction of the substrate or a lower layer of the component and a vector tangent to the lower leading edge of the overhanging portion of the cell. The overhang degree may be in a range of, for example, 0° to 90°, 0° to 75°, 0° to 60°, 0° to 45°, or 0° to 30°.”)
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 Kiener and Glaser to include Steinberg’s features of the discrete pattern is formed by spatial orientations whose angular values are substantially discretized in 45° steps. Doing so would increase accessibility and increase the adoption rate of the technology worldwide. (Steinberg, [0005])
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kiener and Glaser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein a grid cell which is filled with more virtual material than an adjacent grid cell is ascertained and in that a direction leading from the ascertained grid cell to the adjacent grid cell is included in the temporal sequence of the orientations.
Steinberg further teaches wherein a grid cell which is filled with more virtual material than an adjacent grid cell is ascertained (see [0058]; Steinberg: “In another embodiment, the deposited cells 40 may have variable sizes. For example, deposited cells 40 at the edge of a layer may be smaller in size than those not adjacent to the edge.”) and in that a direction leading from the ascertained grid cell to the adjacent grid cell is included in the temporal sequence of the orientations. (see [0072]; Steinberg: “The number of segments may vary. There may be adjacent, continuous depositions in a layer where there are three or fewer discrete depositions.”)
The same motivation to combine Kiener, Glaser, and Steinberg a set forth for Claim 7 equally applies to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kiener and Glaser teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Kiener further teaches wherein for a respective orientation of the ascertained temporal sequence: - a rotation of the component into a subsequent orientation of the temporal sequence is caused by the trigger signal. (see [0035]; Kiener: “FIG. 2 shows the process sequence for discharging the filling material 32. The component 13 is shown in the calculated positioning I with which the movement sequence begins. The cavity 25 is an elongated channel, wherein a remaining state in the positioning I with simultaneous introduction of the oscillations 31 results in the filling material 32 being discharged up to a first section 33 from the connecting opening 24 by supporting the force of gravity g. The component is then brought into an intermediate position II by a quarter turn (indicated in FIG. 2 ), so that the material runs down to a section 34 into the arcuate section 99 of the cavity 25 lying in front of it. However, it remains there, so that the component 13 must be rotated back into an intermediate positioning III, which corresponds to the positioning I. Now, the filler material 25 is discharged from the arcuate portion 99 through the communication opening 24. At the same time, the filling material can flow down from the last sack-shaped section. Repeating the last two movements into an intermediate positioning IV (corresponds to II) and back into an intermediate positioning V (corresponds to I and III) results in the last remainder of the filling material 25 also being discharged.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach a material movement is detected by one or more sensors, a trigger signal is generated as a result of detecting an abating of the material movement,
Steinberg from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
a material movement is detected by one or more sensors, (see [0077]; Steinberg: “The associated parameters can also include what machine was used to build the cell (i.e., perform the discrete deposition to create the deposited cell(s) 40), the time and date of deposition, feedback from any sensors, and comparison with the predictions about that cell.”)
a trigger signal is generated as a result of detecting an abating of the material movement, (see [0128]; Steinberg: “In the case where multiple separately moving depositors may reach into a shared space, the inclusion of timing information allows for detecting collision possibilities, especially when an unplanned delay affecting one subsystem during a build may shift timings and create new potential collision instances. The embedded timing information can help detect collision risks and then be edited, along with dynamic re-sequencing of the list, to avert interferences and allow the build to continue.)”)
The same motivation to combine Kiener, Glaser, and Steinberg a set forth for Claim 7 equally applies to Claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on pages 6-7 of the Amendment:
“Applicant contends that claim 1 is not obvious over the cited combinations because the combination of Kiener and Glaser does not teach or render obvious each and every element of amended claim 1. Specifically, the combination of cited references does not teach or render obvious, "c) ascertaining a discrete pattern of spatial orientations of the component a basis of the alignment specification."
The Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. Examiner notes that Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Glaser [0209] discloses the database 128 may comprise one or both of simulated data or empirically retrieved data on fiber orientation. Besides, Glaser [0222] discloses “Step vi) 154 may further comprise substep vi.2) (denoted with reference number 164) retrieving information on fiber orientation for each cell 116 from the database 128 by using a cell position of the cell 116 and determining fiber orientation for the cell 116 in the cell coordinate system” while Glaser [0223] discloses “In particular, substep vi1) 164 may be performed by using similarity considerations between the mold cavity 112 and the dummy element 130. Specifically, substep vi.2) 164 may be performed by using similarity considerations between a shape of the mold cavity 112 and a shape of the dummy element 130.” That is, determining fiber orientation based on using similarity considerations reads on limitation c). The claims as presently presented do not preclude this interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Friedrich (US11433658B2) discloses the object is cleaned from excess material by moving the object and thereby generating a mass inertial force in the excess material.
Dudley (US12083744B2) discloses at least one drainage system to remove unused material and at least one excess material stripper for collecting and removal and recycling of unsolidified materials.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights