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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 20-44 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/14/2022 are accepted.
Oath/Declaration
4. For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 09/14/2022 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/14/2022, 11/03/2022, 8/8/2023 and 3/28/2024 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(b). Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant's IDS forms filed 9/14/2022, 11/03/2022, 8/8/2023 and 3/28/2024 are attached to the instant Office action.
Preliminary Amendment
6. Applicants submitted Preliminary Amendment dated 11/02/2022. Claims 1-19 have been canceled, claims 20-44 have been added. The amendment has been entered. Claims 20-44 are pending, with claims 20,26 and 34 being independent in the instant application.
Examiner Notes
7. 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. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Double Patenting
8. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting unpatentable over claims of Patent Application No. US11455435B2 (Date of Patent:
September 22, 2022). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 20-30 are anticipated by claims 17,3-6,2,7 and 8 of ‘435 patent, respectively.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 11,455,435
Comments
20. A system comprising: a display device; one or more data processing apparatus coupled with the display device; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled with the one or more data processing apparatus, the non-transitory storage medium encoding:
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain a first model of an object to be manufactured using a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,
wherein the first model comprises smooth curves fit to contours representing discrete height layers of the object to be manufactured using the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,
including program code to detect at least a portion of a first smooth curve for a first of the discrete height layers that is almost coincident with at least a portion of a second smooth curve for a second of the discrete height layers,
and program code to replace the at least a portion of the first smooth curve for the first of the discrete height layers with the at least a portion of the second smooth curve for the second of the discrete height layers;
and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to provide an editable three-dimensional model of the object for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems that employ the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,
wherein the editable three- dimensional model comprises
a combination of extruded versions of the smooth curves.
17. A system comprising: a display device; one or more data processing apparatus coupled with the display device; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled with the one or more data processing apparatus, the non-transitory storage medium encoding: program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain a first model of an object to be manufactured using a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,
wherein the first model comprises smooth curves fit to contours representing discrete height layers of the object to be manufactured using the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,
including program code to detect at least a portion of a first smooth curve for a first of the discrete height layers that is almost coincident with at least a portion of a second smooth curve for a second of the discrete height layers,
and program code to replace the at least a portion of the first smooth curve for the first of the discrete height layers with the at least a portion of the second smooth curve for the second of the discrete height layers;
program code that
causes the one or more data processing apparatus to prepare an editable model of the object,
the editable model comprising a series of construction steps represented in a parametric feature history, wherein the series of construction steps includes combining extruded versions of the smooth curves
to form a solid three dimensional (3D) model of the object in a boundary representation format,
Claim 17 of the ‘435 patent anticipates claim 20 of the instant application. The additional claim language of claim 20 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight; i.e., the added claim language is just additional recitation of antecedent context.
Regarding this limitation, claim scope of claim 17 of ‘435 patent and claim 20 of instant application is substantially similar.
21. The system of claim 20, wherein the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain the first model of the object comprises:
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
receive shape data corresponding to the object to be manufactured using the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
process the shape data to produce polylines matching the contours representing the discrete height layers of the object;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
fit the smooth curves to the polylines;
and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
replace at least one segment of at least one of the smooth curves to reduce a curvature of the at least one segment to be less than or equal to a curvature of a smallest milling tool available for use in the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process for at least one of the discrete height layers.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the obtaining comprises:
receiving shape data corresponding to the object to be manufactured using the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
processing the shape data to produce polylines matching the contours representing the discrete height layers of the object;
fitting the smooth curves to the polylines;
and replacing at least one segment of at least one of the smooth curves to reduce a curvature of the at least one segment to be less than or equal to a curvature of a smallest milling tool available for use in the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process for at least one of the discrete height layers.
Claim 21 of the instant application is obvious variation of the recited claim scope of claim 3 in patent ‘435. The additional claim language of claim 21 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight.
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to replace the at least one segment of at least one of the smooth curves comprises: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to offset outward a set of smooth curves by an amount that is based on the curvature of the smallest milling tool available;
and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
offset inward the set of smooth curves by the amount, while closing any produced gaps using circular arcs.
4. The method of claim 3,
wherein replacing the at least one segment of the at least one of the smooth curves comprises, for each set of smooth curves within one of the discrete height layers: offsetting outward the set of smooth curves by an amount that is based on the curvature of the smallest milling tool available;
and offsetting inward the set of smooth curves by the amount, while closing any produced gaps using circular arcs.
Claim 22 of the instant application is obvious variation of the recited claim scope of claim 4 in patent ‘435. The additional claim language of claim 22 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight.
23. The system of claim 21, wherein the shape data comprises a level-set distance field,
and the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to process the shape data comprises: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to resample the level-set distance field to produce a two-dimensional level-set grid at a slice plane corresponding to a current one of the discrete height layers, the slice plane being perpendicular to a milling direction to be used in the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
extract a current layer polyline from the two-dimensional level-set grid, the current layer polyline matching a current layer contour of the object at the slice plane.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the shape data comprises a level-set distance field
output by a generative design process that employs a level-set based topology optimization method,
and processing the shape data comprises, for each of the discrete height layers:
resampling the level-set distance field to produce a two dimensional (2D) level-set grid at a slice plane corresponding to a current one of the discrete height layers, the slice plane being perpendicular to a milling direction to be used in the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
and extracting a current layer polyline from the 2D level-set grid, the current layer polyline matching a current layer contour of the object at the slice plane.
Claim 23 of the instant application is obvious variation of the recited claim scope of claim 5 in patent ‘435. The additional claim language of claim 23 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight.
25. The system of claim 21, wherein: the shape data includes a representation of one or more modelled solids,
which are to be
preserved in the editable three-dimensional model of the object;
a mesh representation of the object is either the shape data or is produced from the shape data by the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
process the shape data; the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to process the shape data comprises
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to slice the mesh representation of the object with planes
located within respective ones of the discrete height layers along a milling direction, each of the planes being perpendicular to the milling direction;
and the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to obtain the first model of the object comprises: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
segment the polylines into a first set of segments assigned to the one or more modelled solids and a second set of segments not assigned to the one or more modelled solids, wherein the segmentation uses a tolerance value when assigning polyline vertices to segments that errs on assignment to the one or more modelled solids,
and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
extend one or more segments in the second set of segments that are connected with one or more segments in the first set of segments until the one or more segments in the second set of segments meet at an intersection point or at a tangent point of at least one of the one or more modelled solids, while also checking to align intersections of any extended segments that intersect a same at least one of the one or more modelled solids.
2.The method of claim 1, wherein the first model comprises one or more modelled solids,
which are to be preserved in the solid 3D model of the object;
6. The method of claim 3, wherein receiving the shape data comprises
receiving a mesh representation of the object, or receiving a level-set representation of the object from a generative design process and
processing the shape data comprises converting the level-set representation of the object into a mesh representation of the object; wherein processing the shape data to produce the polylines comprises
slicing the mesh representation of the object with planes located within respective ones of the discrete height layers along a milling direction, each of the planes being perpendicular to the milling direction;
and wherein
the obtaining comprises:
segmenting the polylines into a first set of segments assigned to the one or more modelled solids and a second set of segments not assigned to the one or more modelled solids, wherein the segmenting uses a tolerance value when assigning polyline vertices to segments that errs on assignment to the one or more modelled solids,
and extending one or more segments in the second set of segments that are connected with one or more segments in the first set of segments until the one or more segments in the second set of segments meet at an intersection point or at a tangent point of at least one of the one or more modelled solids, while also checking to align intersections of any extended segments that intersect a same at least one of the one or more modelled solids.
Claim 25 of the instant application is obvious variation of the recited claim scopes of claims 2 and in light of claim 6 in patent ‘435. The additional claim language of claim 25 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight.
26. A system comprising: a display device; one or more data processing apparatus coupled with the display device; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled with the one or more data processing apparatus, the non-transitory storage medium encoding:
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain a first model of an object to be manufactured using a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,
wherein the first model comprises (i) smooth curves fit to contours representing discrete height layers of the object to be manufactured using the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process, and
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to prepare an editable model of the object, wherein the editable model comprises a series of construction steps represented in a parametric feature history, wherein the series of construction steps includes
combining extruded versions of the smooth curves with the one or more modelled solids to form the solid three-dimensional model of the object,
and the parametric feature history includes a sketch feature associated with at least one of the discrete height layers;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to render a user interface element
showing the sketch feature in relation to the editable model;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to receive user input via the user interface element;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to reshape, responsive to the user input, a subset of the smooth curves in the at least one of the discrete height layers to change the solid three-dimensional model of the object;
and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to replay the series of construction steps represented in the parametric feature history to construct the solid three-dimensional model of the object,
as changed by the user input.
(ii) one or more modelled solids, which are to be preserved in a solid three- dimensional model of the object;
17. A system comprising: a display device; one or more data processing apparatus coupled with the display device; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled with the one or more data processing apparatus, the non-transitory storage medium encoding:
program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain a first model of an object to be manufactured using a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,
wherein the first model comprises smooth curves fit to contours representing discrete height layers of the object to be manufactured using the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,
program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus to prepare an editable model of the object, the editable model comprising a series of construction steps represented in a parametric feature history, wherein the series of construction steps includes combining extruded versions of the smooth curves to form a solid three dimensional (3D) model of the object in a boundary representation format,
and the parametric feature history includes a sketch feature associated with at least one of the discrete height layers;
program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to render to the display screen a user interface element showing the sketch feature in relation to the editable model;
program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to receive user input via the user interface element;
program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to reshape, responsive to the user input, a subset of the smooth curves in the at least one of the discrete height layers to change the solid 3D model;
and program code that causes the one or more data processing apparatus to replay the series of construction steps represented in the parametric feature history to construct the solid 3D model of the object in the boundary representation format,
as changed by the user input.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first model comprises
one or more modelled solids, which are to be
preserved in the solid 3D model of the object;
Claim 26 of the instant application is obvious variation of the recited claim scopes of Claim 17 and in light of claim 2 of the ‘435 patent.
27. The system of claim 26,
wherein the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves comprises:
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
detect at least a portion of at least one smooth curve for at least one of the discrete height layers that is almost coincident with at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids;
and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
align the at least a portion of the at least one first smooth curve with the
at least
a portion of the one or more modelled solids.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first model comprises one or more modelled solids, which are to be preserved in the solid 3D model of the object;
wherein the modifying comprises
detecting at least a portion of another smooth curve for the first of the discrete height layers that is almost coincident with at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids,
and aligning the at least a portion of the another smooth curve for the first of the discrete height layers with the at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids;
Claim 27 of the instant application is obvious variation of the recited claim scope of claim 2 in patent ‘435. The additional claim language of claim 27 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight.
These 2 limitations of child vs parent application have similar scope of invention.
28. The system of claim 27,
wherein the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus
to reshape the subset of the smooth curves comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
constrain changes to the at least a portion of the at least one first smooth curve to maintain tangency and contact with the at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first model comprises one or more modelled solids, which are to be preserved in the solid 3D model of the object;
…
wherein the reshaping comprises
constraining changes to the at least a portion of the another smooth curve to maintain tangency and contact with the at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids;
Claim 28 of the instant application is obvious variation of the recited claim scope of claim 2 in patent ‘435. The additional claim language of claim 28 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight.
29. The system of claim 26, wherein the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
obtain the first model of the object comprises: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
receive a level-set representation of the object, or receive a mesh representation of the object and convert the mesh representation into a level-set representation of the object;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
modify one or more level-set values in the level-set representation of the object, in each of one or more milling directions specified for the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process, to remove undercuts;
program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to
modify one or more additional level-set values in the level-set representation of the object to move one or more planar faces of the object up to a height level of that planar face's corresponding one of the discrete height layers;
and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to convert the modified level-set representation of the object into the smooth curves of the first model.
7. The method of claim 2,
wherein the obtaining comprises:
receiving a level-set representation of the object, or receiving a mesh representation of the object and converting the mesh representation into a level-set representation of the object;
modifying one or more level-set values in the level-set representation of the object, in each of one or more milling directions specified for the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process, to remove undercuts;
modifying one or more additional level-set values in the level-set representation of the object to move one or more planar faces of the object up to a height level of that planar face's corresponding one of the discrete height layers;
and converting the modified level-set representation of the object into an output mesh representation of the object; wherein the first model comprises the output mesh representation of the object.
Claim 29 of the instant application is obvious variation of the recited claim scope of claim 7 in patent ‘435. The additional claim language of claim 29 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight.
30. The system of claim 29, wherein the non-transitory storage medium encodes program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to,
for each modelled solid of the one or more modelled solids:
for each layer of the discrete height layers along a milling direction,
intersect the layer with the modelled solid to produce a portion of the modelled solid, move the portion of the modelled solid completely under the layer in the milling direction,
sweep the portion of the modelled solid upward, opposite the milling direction, through the layer to produce a swept solid, and intersect the layer with the swept solid with to produce a replacement for the portion of the modelled solid;
sweep one or more upside faces of the modelled solid upward, opposite the milling direction, to a top most level of the discrete height layers along the milling direction to produce one or more upside swept solids;
sweep any downside faces of the modelled solid downward, in the milling direction, to a bottom most level of the discrete height layers along the milling direction to produce one or more downside swept solids;
intersect the one or more upside swept solids with the one or more downside swept solids to produce one or more undercut filling solids; and combine the one or more undercut filling solids with the modelled solid.
8. The method of claim 7, comprising,
for each modelled solid of the one or more modelled solids:
for each layer of the discrete height layers along a milling direction,
intersecting the layer with the modelled solid to produce a portion of the modelled solid, moving the portion of the modelled solid completely under the layer in the milling direction,
sweeping the portion of the modelled solid upward, opposite the milling direction, through the layer to produce a swept solid, and intersecting the layer with the swept solid with to produce a replacement for the portion of the modelled solid;
and sweeping one or more upside faces of the modelled solid upward, opposite the milling direction, to a top most level of the discrete height layers along the milling direction to produce one or more upside swept solids;
sweeping any downside faces of the modelled solid downward, in the milling direction, to a bottom most level of the discrete height layers along the milling direction to produce one or more downside swept solids;
intersecting the one or more upside swept solids with the one or more downside swept solids to produce one or more undercut filling solids; and combining the one or more undercut filling solids with the modelled solid.
Claim 8 of the ‘435 patent anticipates claim 30 of the instant application. Claim 30 of the instant application is substantially similar to claim 8 of the ‘435 patent, as analyzed above and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional claim language of claim 30 in instant Application is recitation of intended use which is not given patentable weight.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
9. Claims 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vouzelaud et al. (Patent Number US5432704A), in view of a website from Autodesk named as Autodesk_April_update (https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/blog/april-19-2017-update-whats-new/) (hereinafter Autodesk_April) and further in view of a YouTube Video on 2.5 Axis Machining CAM by Autodesk Fusion 360 (hereinafter 2.5D CAM, video published on Jun 17, 2016).
Regarding claim 26, Vouzelaud teaches a system comprising: a display device; one or more data processing apparatus coupled with the display device; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled with the one or more data processing apparatus, the non-transitory storage medium encoding: (Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 1 lines 17-23: “A solid geometric modeling system is a computer graphic system which is used to represent solid objects. If the computer system constructs and stores all the geometric information of the boundary surfaces of the object, then it is called a solid modeling system with boundary representation.” In col. 10 lines 55-66: “The program displays the sliced model such as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 from any perspective desired by the operator. … The program uses the adaptive lamina model of the present invention to generate the numerical control code for a milling machine such as a 3-axis (all-axis contouring) TMC 1000(R) milling machine from Light Machining Corporation of Massachusetts. The program displays slices of the milling tool paths on a CRT for verification by the operator using Autocad Release 11(R)”).
Vouzelaud teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to receive user input via the user interface element; (Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 4 lines 27-32: “method of the present invention permits the geometrical error between the profile of the desired object and the profile of the model of such object, to be held within predetermined tolerances. A measurable geometrical error criterion is defined by the user as an upper tolerance for the profile of the model.” Further, it has been discussed in col. 17 lines 17-22 that it has been shown in FIG. 7, the constraints on the thickness of the next layer, are provided by the user as inputs. According to the present invention, the operator typically selects the maximum layer thickness to be the maximum layer thickness that the process will allow).
Vouzelaud teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain a first model of an object to be manufactured, (Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 4 lines 27-40: “method of the present invention permits the geometrical error between the profile of the desired object and the profile of the model of such object, to be held within predetermined tolerances. A measurable geometrical error criterion is defined by the user as an upper tolerance for the profile of the model. Then, given a process, such as a manufacturing process, and its technical characteristics, the model of the object is generated in the form of a succession of layers. … This supposes that the tolerance is compatible with both the process in use and the representation of the object, such as a CAD representation.”).
However, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “the first model comprises (i) smooth curves fit to contours representing discrete height layers of the object to be manufactured; and (ii) one or more modelled solids, which are to be preserved in a solid three- dimensional model of the object; program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves; program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to prepare an editable model of the object, wherein the editable model comprises a series of construction steps represented in a parametric feature history, wherein the series of construction steps includes combining extruded versions of the smooth curves with the one or more modelled solids to form the solid three-dimensional model of the object, and the parametric feature history includes a sketch feature associated with at least one of the discrete height layers; program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to render a user interface element showing the sketch feature in relation to the editable model; program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to reshape, responsive to the user input, a subset of the smooth curves in the at least one of the discrete height layers to change the solid three-dimensional model of the object; program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to replay the series of construction steps represented in the parametric feature history to construct the solid three-dimensional model of the object, as changed by the user input.
wherein Autodesk_April teaches the first model comprises (i) smooth curves fit to contours representing discrete height layers of the object to be manufactured (Examiner would construe the claim term ‘smooth curves’ as ‘spline curve’, according to Specification of current application at para [00123]. The prior art Autodesk_April discussed in page 12 and 13, under heading “Create tangent/smooth constraints directly with model edges”, 3D geometry sketch works better with tangent and smooth constraints (e.g. for curves). It has been shown in the Figure under heading “3D spline handle control”, where smooth curves fit to contours in order to represent height layers of the object (the value of X, Y and Z distance) have been shown, when Spline handles are shown/hidden in ‘Move’ by selecting spline points and all of them can be edited directly in the Move tool. Therefore, it has been shown (in this update on April 19, 2017) that a 3D geometry model can be machined or manufactured and the model comprises smooth curves/splines fit to contours representing discrete height layers of the object).
and Autodesk_April teaches (ii) one or more modelled solids, which are to be preserved in a solid three- dimensional model of the object; (Autodesk_April discussed in page 12-13, where 3D geometry model got constrained in 3D space where user can create tangent/smooth constraints directly with model edges. It can be seen under heading ‘Create tangent/smooth constraints directly with model edges’, where tangent and smooth constraints work better in 3D geometry sketch, two solid models had been shown in this example, therefore it is assumed that these modelled solids are to be preserved in the solid 3D model of the object).
Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves (Autodesk_April discussed in page 12-15, where 3D geometry model got constrained in 3D space where user can create tangent/smooth constraints directly with model edges. The user can pick the edges in sketch entity to be constrained, can use “Move/Copy command manipulators” to move spline handles, all of the spline handles can be edited directly in the Move tool. The user can use the “Move/Copy command” and drag a spline point by using the manipulators, the point will leave its origin plane as expected. Moreover, it has been discussed in page 8 very briefly about ‘software’ and it is very obvious to consider that ‘CAD software or program’ has been indicated in this context. Therefore, it is understood that smooth curves/splines get modified by program code (e.g., CAD program)).
Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to prepare an editable model of the object, wherein the editable model comprises a series of construction steps represented in a parametric feature history, wherein the series of construction steps includes combining extruded versions of the smooth curves with the one or more modelled solids to form the solid three-dimensional model of the object, and the parametric feature history includes a sketch feature associated with at least one of the discrete height layers; (Autodesk_April mentioned in page 8 under heading “Interrupt/stop a compute or timeline playback” that edit, a Finish Form, or Finish Base Feature as a parametric feature. Also, it has discussed very briefly about ‘software’ in page 8 and it is very obvious to consider that ‘CAD software or program’ has been indicated in this context. It has been introduced by Autodesk (in this update on April 19, 2017) in page 12-15 where the 3D coincident constraints, a number of effective productivity enhancements for 3D spline workflows (in order to make splines more intuitive for defining 3D forms), a user can constrain a sketch entity to a point of a piece of 3D geometry in 3D space, the constraints would work between sketch entities and points/vertices in 3D and 3D geometry sketch works better with tangent and smooth constraints (e.g. for smooth curves). All of these updates mentioned by Autodesk would be considered as the series of construction steps to form a solid three-dimensional (3D) model of the object or an editable model (with boundary representation format, since 3D spline workflows have been introduced) of the object. Here, the smooth curves with tangent and smooth constraints are considered as extruded versions of the smooth curves where solid 3D model of the object got expressed or represented in the boundary representation format. Moreover, the abovementioned construction steps had been represented in a parametric feature history such as in page 14, it can be seen at Figure under heading “3D spline handle control” where user used the Move/Copy command manipulators to move spline handles and Spline handles shown/hidden in Move by selecting spline points and all of them edited directly in the Move tool. Here, the parametric feature history (at the right side of the figure) included a sketch feature associated with at least one of the discrete height layers i.e. first smooth curve with discrete height layer (as an example, Y distance value at the right side of the figure)).
Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to render a user interface element showing the sketch feature in relation to the editable model; (Examiner would consider the ‘user interface element’ displayed in GUI (Graphical User Interface). Autodesk_April discussed in page 12 and 13 that a user can constrain a sketch entity to a point of a piece of 3D geometry in 3D space, the constraints would work between sketch entities and points/vertices in 3D and 3D geometry sketch works better with tangent and smooth constraints (e.g. for smooth curves). All of these updates mentioned by Autodesk would be considered as a solid three-dimensional (3D) model of the object or an editable model and it can be seen in page 12 and 13 at Figures, the sketch features in “Sketch Pallet” as an user interface element or in GUI, where user can select different sketch feature related to the editable 3D model).
Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to reshape, responsive to the user input, a subset of the smooth curves in the at least one of the discrete height layers to change the solid three-dimensional model of the object; (Autodesk_April discussed in page 14 under heading “3D spline handle control”, the first smooth curve with height layer (Y distance at the right side of the figure) intersected with the second smooth curve with discrete height layers (where both Y and Z distance value, at the right side of the figure) got modified by the “Move/Copy command”. Here, the Y distance value of first smooth curve got replaced or reshaped by the Y distance value of second smooth curve, when user used the Move/Copy command manipulators to move spline handles i.e. user input is responsive in this scenario to reshape the smooth curves at least one of the discrete height layers to change the solid 3D model).
and Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to replay the series of construction steps represented in the parametric feature history to construct the solid three-dimensional model of the object, as changed by the user input. (Autodesk_April mentioned in page 8 under heading “Interrupt/stop a compute or timeline playback” that edit, a Finish Form, or Finish Base Feature as a parametric feature. Also, it has discussed very briefly about ‘software’ in page 8 and it is very obvious to consider that ‘CAD software or program’ has been indicated in this context. It has been introduced by Autodesk (in this update on April 19, 2017) in page 12-15 where the 3D coincident constraints, a number of effective productivity enhancements for 3D spline workflows (in order to make splines more intuitive for defining 3D forms), a user can constrain a sketch entity to a point of a piece of 3D geometry in 3D space, the constraints would work between sketch entities and points/vertices in 3D and 3D geometry sketch works better with tangent and smooth constraints (e.g. for smooth curves). All of these updates mentioned by Autodesk would be considered as a solid three-dimensional (3D) model of the object or an editable model (with boundary representation format, since 3D spline workflows have been introduced) of the object get edited or modified by a series of construction steps. Moreover, the abovementioned construction steps had been represented in a parametric feature history such as in page 14, it can be seen at Figure under heading “3D spline handle control” where user used the Move/Copy command manipulators to move spline handles and Spline handles shown/hidden in Move by selecting spline points and all of them edited directly in the Move tool. Here, the parametric feature history (at the right side of the figure) included a sketch feature associated with at least one of the discrete height layers i.e. first smooth curve with discrete height layer as an example, the Y distance value of first smooth curve got replaced by the Y distance value of second smooth curve, when user used the Move/Copy command manipulators to move spline handles. The series of construction steps represented or replayed and user input is responsive in this scenario (because user was able to use parametric feature history (at the right side of the figure) that included a sketch feature associated with at least one of the discrete height layers) to construct the solid 3D model of the object in the boundary representation format (smooth curves)).
Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April, to modify a 3D model of an object to be manufactured in Vouzelaud’s teaching, to include one or more modelled solids, to be preserved in a solid 3D model of the object to be manufactured in Autodesk_April’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Autodesk_April because “We’ve improved solver performance so that sketch pattern solves happen faster and dragging behavior is better. You no longer have to press Tab twice to lock dimension values and jump to the next one. Sketch lines drawn to a Spline midpoint now created a coincident constraint. Regardless of which rendering path you take (local or cloud), your renderings will now look the same. This is because we finally unified our rendering engine so that your results are consistent across the board. The one of the left was locally rendered and the one of the right was rendered via the cloud. In addition to these new features, we’ve made fixes and improvements in every aspect of the software. (Autodesk_April disclosed in page 15,30,44).
However, Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April do not explicitly teach the limitations “an object to be manufactured using a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process; the smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;
2.5D CAM teaches an object to be manufactured using a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process; (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
2.5D CAM teaches the smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process; (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”:
“00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 includes a feature or a full library of editable model in order to facilitate the 2.5-axis machining projects).
Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM before him or her, to modify the machining/manufacturing process of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April to include the 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature machining of 2.5D CAM because Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by 2.5D CAM (2.5D CAM disclosed in YouTube video’s “2.5 Axis Machining CAM” transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” in timestamp of 00:17 to 00:55).
Regarding Claim 27, Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM teach the system of claim 26, Vouzelaud teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to align the at least a portion of the at least one first smooth curve with the at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids. (Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 8 lines 17-32: “While the view shown in FIG. 4 is taken of the model 22 rather than of the object 20 itself shown in FIG. 3, the FIG. 4 view is taken in the same direction as the lines pointing toward the numerals 4-4 in FIG. 3. … In accordance with the present invention, the procedure whereby the model of the object is divided into layers, must incorporate a mathematical relationship that expresses the geometrical error (a.k.a. step error) between the profile of the layer of the model and the desired profile of the object. This relationship must express the thickness of the layer of the model as a function of the geometrical error. The specific relationship between the thickness of the layer of the model and the geometrical error will vary depending on the local geometry of the object's profile. For example, one portion 23 of the profile (chain dashed line) of the object shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 is an inclined straight line. Similarly, as shown in FIGS. 8A and 9B for example, the profile 19 (dashed line) of the desired object can be a curved line.”
The disclosure “step error “between the profile of the layer of the model and the desired profile of the object”, the layering (e.g. steps) are not a smooth curve, but “the desired profile of the object can be a curved line.” Accordingly, the desired profile may be interpreted as the claimed “smooth curve” and the stair step layers (e.g. “profile of the layer of the model”) correspond with at least a portion of the modelled solid).
However, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to detect at least a portion of at least one smooth curve for at least one of the discrete height layers that is almost coincident with at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids;”
wherein Autodesk_April teaches the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves comprises: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to detect at least a portion of at least one smooth curve for at least one of the discrete height layers that is almost coincident with at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids; (Autodesk_April discussed in page 12-14, under heading “3D coincident constraints” user can constrain a sketch entity to a point of a piece of 3D geometry in 3D space where ‘Coincident’ feature has been selected by the user under ‘Constraint’ option in the ‘Sketch Pallet’ (at the right side of the Figure). Moreover, in page 14 under heading “3D spline handle control”, it can be seen that first smooth curve with height layer (Y distance at the right side of the figure) intersected with the second smooth curve with discrete height layers (where both Y and Z distance value, at the right side of the figure) got modified by the “Move/Copy command”. Therefore, it has been detected (in this update on April 19, 2017) that first smooth curve with discrete height layers coincided with a portion of second smooth curve of another modelled solids).
Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April, to modify a 3D model of an object to be manufactured in Vouzelaud’s teaching, to include one or more modelled solids, to be preserved in a solid 3D model of the object to be manufactured in Autodesk_April’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Autodesk_April because “We’ve improved solver performance so that sketch pattern solves happen faster and dragging behavior is better. You no longer have to press Tab twice to lock dimension values and jump to the next one. Sketch lines drawn to a Spline midpoint now created a coincident constraint. Regardless of which rendering path you take (local or cloud), your renderings will now look the same. This is because we finally unified our rendering engine so that your results are consistent across the board. The one of the left was locally rendered and the one of the right was rendered via the cloud. In addition to these new features, we’ve made fixes and improvements in every aspect of the software. (Autodesk_April disclosed in page 15,30,44).
Regarding Claim 28, Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM teach the system of claim 27, however, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to reshape the subset of the smooth curves comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to constrain changes to the at least a portion of the at least one first smooth curve to maintain tangency and contact with the at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids.
wherein Autodesk_April teaches the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to reshape the subset of the smooth curves comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to constrain changes to the at least a portion of the at least one first smooth curve to maintain tangency and contact with the at least a portion of the one or more modelled solids. (Autodesk_April discussed in page 14 under heading “3D spline handle control”, the first smooth curve with height layer (Y distance at the right side of the figure) intersected with the second smooth curve with discrete height layers (where both Y and Z distance value, at the right side of the figure) got modified by the “Move/Copy command”. Here, the Y distance value of first smooth curve got replaced or reshaped by the Y distance value of second smooth curve, when user used the Move/Copy command manipulators to move spline handles. Here, the tangency had been maintained when constraints of smooth curves changed in order to reshape the smooth curves with discrete height layers came in contact with at least another smooth curve of modelled solids).
Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April, to modify a 3D model of an object to be manufactured in Vouzelaud’s teaching, to include one or more modelled solids, to be preserved in a solid 3D model of the object to be manufactured in Autodesk_April’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Autodesk_April because “We’ve improved solver performance so that sketch pattern solves happen faster and dragging behavior is better. You no longer have to press Tab twice to lock dimension values and jump to the next one. Sketch lines drawn to a Spline midpoint now created a coincident constraint. Regardless of which rendering path you take (local or cloud), your renderings will now look the same. This is because we finally unified our rendering engine so that your results are consistent across the board. The one of the left was locally rendered and the one of the right was rendered via the cloud. In addition to these new features, we’ve made fixes and improvements in every aspect of the software. (Autodesk_April disclosed in page 15,30,44).
Regarding Claim 29, Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM teach the system of claim 26, however, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain the first model of the object comprises: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to receive a level-set representation of the object, or receive a mesh representation of the object and convert the mesh representation into a level-set representation of the object; program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify one or more level-set values in the level-set representation of the object, in each of one or more milling directions specified for the manufacturing process, to remove undercuts; program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify one or more additional level-set values in the level-set representation of the object to move one or more planar faces of the object up to a height level of that planar face's corresponding one of the discrete height layers; program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to convert the modified level-set representation of the object into the smooth curves of the first model.”
wherein Autodesk_April teaches the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain the first model of the object comprises: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to receive a level-set representation of the object, or receive a mesh representation of the object and convert the mesh representation into a level-set representation of the object; (Autodesk_April discussed in page 14 under heading “3D spline handle control” has been received and assuming level-set or mesh representation of the object would have three dimensional values (X, Y and Z). In these scenarios, distance values of (X, Y and Z) can be converted as the mesh representation into a level-set representation of the object).
Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify one or more level-set values in the level-set representation of the object, in each of one or more milling directions specified for the manufacturing process, to remove undercuts; (Autodesk_April discussed in page 26 under heading ‘Section View–Objects to Cut Control’, where user can modify one or more level-set values (at right side of the Figure, e.g. 4 ‘Body1’ or part of an object had been selected in this scenario), as an example which unwanted parts or portions of an object can be cut or remove the undercuts).
Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify one or more additional level-set values in the level-set representation of the object to move one or more planar faces of the object up to a height level of that planar face's corresponding one of the discrete height layers; (Autodesk_April discussed in page 28 under heading ‘Section analysis’ in “Rendering & Graphics” section, level-set values in the level-set representation of the object got modified where one planar faces of the object along to Y axis or Y distance value up to a height level of corresponding one of the discrete height layers i.e. planar faces of the object up to a height level of that planar face's corresponding one of the discrete height layers (Y distance value ) got changed/modified by the user).
and Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to convert the modified level-set representation of the object into the smooth curves of the first model. (Autodesk_April discussed in page 28 under heading ‘Section analysis’ in “Rendering & Graphics” section, level-set values in the level-set representation of the object got modified by the user i.e. level-set representation of the object got modified and converted into an output mesh 30representation of the object (assuming X and Y are planar faces of the object, in this case the distance value of X might be 0 and Y has a distance value, in Section Analysis tool option at right side of the Figure).
Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April, to modify a 3D model of an object to be manufactured in Vouzelaud’s teaching, to include one or more modelled solids, to be preserved in a solid 3D model of the object to be manufactured in Autodesk_April’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Autodesk_April because “We’ve improved solver performance so that sketch pattern solves happen faster and dragging behavior is better. You no longer have to press Tab twice to lock dimension values and jump to the next one. Sketch lines drawn to a Spline midpoint now created a coincident constraint. Regardless of which rendering path you take (local or cloud), your renderings will now look the same. This is because we finally unified our rendering engine so that your results are consistent across the board. The one of the left was locally rendered and the one of the right was rendered via the cloud. In addition to these new features, we’ve made fixes and improvements in every aspect of the software. (Autodesk_April disclosed in page 15,30,44).
However, Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April do not explicitly teach the limitation “one or more milling directions specified for the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;”
2.5D CAM teaches one or more milling directions specified for the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process; (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM before him or her, to modify the machining/manufacturing process of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April to include the 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature machining of 2.5D CAM because Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by 2.5D CAM (2.5D CAM disclosed in YouTube video’s “2.5 Axis Machining CAM” transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” in timestamp of 00:17 to 00:55).
Regarding Claim 30, Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM teach the system of claim 29, however, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “the non-transitory storage medium encodes program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to, for each modelled solid of the one or more modelled solids: for each layer of the discrete height layers along a milling direction, intersect the layer with the modelled solid to produce a portion of the modelled solid, move the portion of the modelled solid completely under the layer in the milling direction, sweep the portion of the modelled solid upward, opposite the milling direction, through the layer to produce a swept solid, and intersect the layer with the swept solid with to produce a replacement for the portion of the modelled solid; sweep one or more upside faces of the modelled solid upward, opposite the milling direction, to a top most level of the discrete height layers along the milling direction to produce one or more upside swept solids; sweep any downside faces of the modelled solid downward, in the milling direction, to a bottom most level of the discrete height layers along the milling direction to produce one or more downside swept solids; intersect the one or more upside swept solids with the one or more downside swept solids to produce one or more undercut filling solids; and combine the one or more undercut filling solids with the modelled solid.
wherein Autodesk_April teaches the non-transitory storage medium encodes program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to, for each modelled solid of the one or more modelled solids: for each layer of the discrete height layers along a milling direction, (Autodesk_April discussed in page 28 under heading ‘Section analysis’ in “Rendering & Graphics” section, a modelled solid has been shown in the Figure. It has been discussed in page 28 under heading ‘Section analysis’ in “Rendering & Graphics” section, discrete height layers (Y distance value, in Section Analysis tool option at right side of the Figure) and the milling direction can be seen along to the Y distance value or discrete height layers (different height layers values can be seen in the Figure)).
Autodesk_April teaches intersect the layer with the modelled solid to produce a portion of the modelled solid, (Autodesk_April discussed in page 28 under heading ‘Section analysis’ in “Rendering & Graphics” section, a portion of modelled solid has been shown in the Figure, which intersected the height layer on the surface).
Autodesk_April teaches move the portion of the modelled solid completely under the layer in the milling direction, (Referring back to the same page 28 and same Figure (as mentioned above), Autodesk_April shown that the portion of the modelled solid moved under the height layer in the milling direction (can be seen at the slow motion of the figure)).
Autodesk_April teaches sweep the portion of the modelled solid upward, opposite the milling direction, through the layer to produce a swept solid, (Examiner would construe sweeping as extending or performed something in a long, continuous curve or any ‘extensive or expansive’ component/solid. Referring back to the same page 28 and same Figure (as mentioned above), Autodesk_April has shown a portion of the modelled solid swept at upward assumed as opposite of the milling direction, through the height layer (towards Y distance value or discrete height layers) to produce a swept or expansive modelled solid).
and Autodesk_April teaches intersect the layer with the swept solid with to produce a replacement for the portion of the modelled solid; (Referring back to the same page 28 and same Figure (as mentioned above), Autodesk_April has shown a portion of the modelled solid with swept or expansive view (when the modelled solid extended toward top most level), which is assumed as a replacement for the portion of the modelled solid when the height layer got intersected and produced swept solid).
Autodesk_April teaches sweep one or more upside faces of the modelled solid upward, opposite the milling direction, to a top most level of the discrete height layers along the milling direction to produce one or more upside swept solids; (Referring back to the same page 28 and same Figure (as mentioned above), Autodesk_April has shown the sweeping of one upside faces of the modelled solid at upward direction, which is assumed opposite to the milling direction, to a top most level of the discrete height layers (when distance value of Y is high such as 1.027 mm, in the Figure) along the milling direction and produced one upside swept or expansive modelled solids).
Autodesk_April teaches sweep any downside faces of the modelled solid downward, in the milling direction, to a bottom most level of the discrete height layers along the milling direction to produce one or more downside swept solids; (Referring back to the same page 28 and same Figure (as mentioned above), Autodesk_April has shown the sweeping of one downside faces of the modelled solid downward direction, which is assumed opposite to the milling direction, to a bottom most level of the discrete height layers (when distance value of Y is low or small such as -33.382 mm, in the Figure) along the milling direction to produce one or more downside swept modelled solids).
Autodesk_April teaches intersect the one or more upside swept solids with the one or more downside swept solids to produce one or more undercut filling solids; (Autodesk_April has shown a Figure in page 32-33 under heading “3D Morph Strategy”, where one or more upside swept solids intersected with the one or more downside swept solids (assuming the upward green arrows for upward direction and red arrow for downward direction, in this scenario) and one or more undercut filling solids (at the left side of the Figure) have been produced when user applied the ‘3D Morph strategy’ in this example).
and Autodesk_April teaches combine the one or more undercut filling solids with the modelled solid. (Autodesk_April has shown a Figure in page 32-33 under heading “3D Morph Strategy”, where one or more undercut filling solids combined with the modelled solid in the Figure, when user applied the ‘3D Morph strategy’).
Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April, to modify a 3D model of an object to be manufactured in Vouzelaud’s teaching, to include one or more modelled solids, to be preserved in a solid 3D model of the object to be manufactured in Autodesk_April’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Autodesk_April because “We’ve improved solver performance so that sketch pattern solves happen faster and dragging behavior is better. You no longer have to press Tab twice to lock dimension values and jump to the next one. Sketch lines drawn to a Spline midpoint now created a coincident constraint. Regardless of which rendering path you take (local or cloud), your renderings will now look the same. This is because we finally unified our rendering engine so that your results are consistent across the board. The one of the left was locally rendered and the one of the right was rendered via the cloud. In addition to these new features, we’ve made fixes and improvements in every aspect of the software. (Autodesk_April disclosed in page 15,30,44).
Regarding Claim 31, Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM teach the system of claim 26, however, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “the one or more data processing apparatus to receive the one or more modelled solids; and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to detect, from the one or more modelled solids,
wherein Autodesk_April teaches the non-transitory storage medium encodes: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to receive the one or more modelled solids; and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to detect, from the one or more modelled solids, (Autodesk_April discussed in page 12-13, where 3D geometry model got constrained in 3D space where user can create tangent/smooth constraints directly with model edges. It can be seen under heading ‘Create tangent/smooth constraints directly with model edges’, where tangent and smooth constraints work better in 3D geometry sketch, two solid models had been shown in this example, therefore it is assumed that these modelled solids are to be received and detected in the solid 3D model of the object).
Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April, to modify a 3D model of an object to be manufactured in Vouzelaud’s teaching, to include one or more modelled solids, to be preserved in a solid 3D model of the object to be manufactured in Autodesk_April’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Autodesk_April because “We’ve improved solver performance so that sketch pattern solves happen faster and dragging behavior is better. You no longer have to press Tab twice to lock dimension values and jump to the next one. Sketch lines drawn to a Spline midpoint now created a coincident constraint. Regardless of which rendering path you take (local or cloud), your renderings will now look the same. This is because we finally unified our rendering engine so that your results are consistent across the board. The one of the left was locally rendered and the one of the right was rendered via the cloud. In addition to these new features, we’ve made fixes and improvements in every aspect of the software. (Autodesk_April disclosed in page 15,30,44).
However, Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April do not explicitly teach the limitation “one or more milling directions specified for the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process;”
2.5D CAM teaches one or more milling directions specified for the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process; (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM before him or her, to modify the machining/manufacturing process of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April to include the 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature machining of 2.5D CAM because Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by 2.5D CAM (2.5D CAM disclosed in YouTube video’s “2.5 Axis Machining CAM” transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” in timestamp of 00:17 to 00:55).
Regarding Claim 32, Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM teach the system of claim 26, however, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “to receive the one or more modelled solids; and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to extract, from the one or more modelled solids, at least one of the discrete height layers”.
wherein Autodesk_April teaches the non-transitory storage medium encodes: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to receive the one or more modelled solids; (Autodesk_April discussed in page 12-13, where 3D geometry model got constrained in 3D space where user can create tangent/smooth constraints directly with model edges. It can be seen under heading ‘Create tangent/smooth constraints directly with model edges’, where tangent and smooth constraints work better in 3D geometry sketch, two solid models had been shown in this example, therefore it is assumed that these modelled solids are to be received in the solid 3D model of the object).
and Autodesk_April teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to extract, from the one or more modelled solids, at least one of the discrete height layers. (Autodesk_April discussed in page 12-14, under heading “3D coincident constraints” user can constrain a sketch entity to a point of a piece of 3D geometry in 3D space where ‘Coincident’ feature has been selected by the user under ‘Constraint’ option in the ‘Sketch Pallet’ (at the right side of the Figure). Moreover, in page 14 under heading “3D spline handle control”, it can be seen that first smooth curve with height layer (Y distance at the right side of the figure) intersected with the second smooth curve with discrete height layers (where both Y and Z distance value, at the right side of the figure) got modified by the “Move/Copy command”. In this scenario at least one of the discrete height layers is being extracted).
Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April, to modify a 3D model of an object to be manufactured in Vouzelaud’s teaching, to include one or more modelled solids, to be preserved in a solid 3D model of the object to be manufactured in Autodesk_April’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Autodesk_April because “We’ve improved solver performance so that sketch pattern solves happen faster and dragging behavior is better. You no longer have to press Tab twice to lock dimension values and jump to the next one. Sketch lines drawn to a Spline midpoint now created a coincident constraint. Regardless of which rendering path you take (local or cloud), your renderings will now look the same. This is because we finally unified our rendering engine so that your results are consistent across the board. The one of the left was locally rendered and the one of the right was rendered via the cloud. In addition to these new features, we’ve made fixes and improvements in every aspect of the software. (Autodesk_April disclosed in page 15,30,44).
Regarding Claim 33, Vouzelaud, Autodesk_April and 2.5D CAM teach the system of claim 26, wherein Vouzelaud teaches construction steps includes adding fillets to concave edges of the solid model of the object. (Under BRI and conventional meaning in the art, Examiner would construe the claim element “adding fillets to concave edges” as adding slices to curved portion of a model. Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 2 lines 28-33: “A vertical cylinder can be represented exactly by two planar intersections, each one corresponding to a slice, one at the bottom and another at the top. Whereas a similarly exact geometrical representation of a cylinder lying on its curved side, or any other object with a free form surface, would require an infinite number of slices. In col. 13 lines 37-43 it has been discussed that in FIGS. 8A, 10A, 10B and 11, the next slice can be mathematically obtained from the current slice Zi by the function that relates the geometry of the desired profile of the object, and characteristic features of the process that uses the layered modeling technique for the object. Further, col. 14 lines 1-4: “Referring to FIG. 8A, the radius of curvature of the spherical end mill is r, and the point 30 of spherical end mill 26 is tangent to the slice Zi. The profile 19 of the desired object intersects with the slice Zi at the point I2.”).
However, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the series of construction steps represented in the parametric feature history”
Autodesk_April teaches the series of construction steps represented in the parametric feature history to edges of three-dimensional model of the object (Autodesk_April mentioned in page 8 under heading “Interrupt/stop a compute or timeline playback” that edit, a Finish Form, or Finish Base Feature as a parametric feature. Also, it has discussed very briefly about ‘software’ in page 8 and it is very obvious to consider that ‘CAD software or program’ has been indicated in this context. It has been introduced by Autodesk (in this update on April 19, 2017) in page 12-15 where the 3D coincident constraints, a number of effective productivity enhancements for 3D spline workflows (in order to make splines more intuitive for defining 3D forms), a user can constrain a sketch entity to a point of a piece of 3D geometry in 3D space, the constraints would work between sketch entities and points/vertices in 3D and 3D geometry sketch works better with tangent and smooth constraints (e.g. for smooth curves). All of these updates mentioned by Autodesk would be considered as the series of construction steps to form a solid three-dimensional (3D) model of the object).
Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and Autodesk_April, to modify a 3D model of an object to be manufactured in Vouzelaud’s teaching, to include one or more modelled solids, to be preserved in a solid 3D model of the object to be manufactured in Autodesk_April’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Autodesk_April because “We’ve improved solver performance so that sketch pattern solves happen faster and dragging behavior is better. You no longer have to press Tab twice to lock dimension values and jump to the next one. Sketch lines drawn to a Spline midpoint now created a coincident constraint. Regardless of which rendering path you take (local or cloud), your renderings will now look the same. This is because we finally unified our rendering engine so that your results are consistent across the board. The one of the left was locally rendered and the one of the right was rendered via the cloud. In addition to these new features, we’ve made fixes and improvements in every aspect of the software. (Autodesk_April disclosed in page 15,30,44).
Claims 34-37,39,41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and further in view of a paper by Zhao et al. (“DSCarver: Decompose-and-Spiral-Carve for Subtractive Manufacturing”) (hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding Claim 34, Vouzelaud teaches a system comprising: a display device; one or more data processing apparatus coupled with the display device; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled with the one or more data processing apparatus, (Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 1 lines 17-23: “A solid geometric modeling system is a computer graphic system which is used to represent solid objects. If the computer system constructs and stores all the geometric information of the boundary surfaces of the object, then it is called a solid modeling system with boundary representation.” In col. 10 lines 55-66: “The program displays the sliced model such as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 from any perspective desired by the operator. … The program uses the adaptive lamina model of the present invention to generate the numerical control code for a milling machine such as a 3-axis (all-axis contouring) TMC 1000(R) milling machine from Light Machining Corporation of Massachusetts. The program displays slices of the milling tool paths on a CRT for verification by the operator using Autocad Release 11(R)”).
Vouzelaud teaches the non-transitory storage medium encoding: wherein the three-dimensional model includes flat areas resulting from the discrete height layers. (Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 1 lines 7-15: “The present invention relates to a method of modeling a solid three-dimensional object and relates more particularly to a method of preparing a model that consists of a plurality of layers stacked atop one another wherein the boundary edge of each layer may vary from the boundary edge of its adjacent layer (above or below) or layers (above and below) to conform to contours in the shape of the object.” In col. 3 lines 1-7: “The effect of having the machine produce successive layers of constant thickness on the surface texture of the object being manufactured, can best be appreciated in the FIG. 2 chart showing the surface roughness of the top portion of a sphere that has been machined using a flat end mill in a manner that produces the object in successive layers of constant thickness.” Further in col. 7 lines 37-51: “As schematically shown in FIG. 7 for example, the thickness ΔZi+1 is a function F2 of the GEOMETRY, the location of the current slice Zi, … The slope calculation then is used in another equation to obtain the thickness ΔZi+1 of the next layer. The particular equation used to calculate this thickness ΔZi+1 of the next layer depends upon additional considerations of GEOMETRY. For example, if the GEOM ETRY involves the use of a flat end mill, Equation (3) above is used to obtain the thickness of the next layer.”).
Vouzelaud teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to obtain a design space for an object to be manufactured and one or more design criteria including at least one manufacturability constraint for the object; (Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 7 lines 30-43: “The present invention applies to any process that has at least a portion of a model of a desired object, generated in a form including a plurality of layers wherein the cross-section of each layer in a plane of view is defined by the intersection with said plane of view, of a pair of parallel planes and an edge (a.k.a. profile of the layer of the model) connecting said parallel planes, and wherein for each layer the distance separating its pair of parallel planes defines the thickness of said layer. While the present invention is applicable to any process that decomposes an object into a model that can be represented by stacked layers, various manufacturing processes have been used in the present application for purposes of illustrating the invention.” The disclosure above “the cross-section of each layer in a plane of view is defined by the intersection with said plane of view; any process that decomposes an object into a model that can be represented by stacked layers, various manufacturing processes have been used in the present application” corresponds to claim limitation “obtain a design space for an object to be manufactured”
In col. 13 lines 24-28: “FIG. 8C for example, the local radius of curvature of the profile of the desired object, must be large relative to the radius of curvature that characterizes the way that the machine in question interacts with the desired object.” In col. 14 lines 51-57: “As shown in FIG. 8C, this condition that defines the second exception, can be mathematically described as a condition in which the local radius of curvature of the profile 33 of the desired object is smaller than the radius of curvature of the cutting tool that is operating on the workpiece to produce the desired object.” The disclosure “local radius of curvature of the profile 33 of the desired object is smaller than the radius of curvature of the cutting tool that is operating on the workpiece to produce the desired object” corresponds to claim limitation “manufacturability constraint for the object” (according to Specification of current Application para [00143] stated: “manufacturability constraint associated with the minimum tool radius is applied”).
However, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “manufacturability constraint corresponding to a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process; to provide object using one or more computer- controlled manufacturing systems that employ the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process,”
2.5D CAM teaches manufacturability constraint corresponding to a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process; (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
2.5D CAM teaches to provide object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems that employ the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process, (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM before him or her, to modify the machining/manufacturing process of Vouzelaud to include the 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature machining of 2.5D CAM because Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by 2.5D CAM (2.5D CAM disclosed in YouTube video’s “2.5 Axis Machining CAM” transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” in timestamp of 00:17 to 00:55).
However, Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM do not explicitly teach the limitations “program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to perform a boundary-based generative design process to produce a generative model for the object using the one or more design criteria, wherein the at least one manufacturability constraint causes at least one shape derivative used during the boundary-based generative design process to guide shape changes for the generative model toward discrete height layers and program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to provide a three-dimensional model in accordance with the generative model, for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.”
Zhao teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to perform a boundary-based generative design process to produce a generative model for the object using the one or more design criteria, (Zhao disclosed in page 137:2 section 1 (right col.): “Our goal is automatic optimization of setup and tool path planning for finish-stage machining of free-form 3D objects using 3+2 machines, where at this finishing stage of the carving process, the current object is already geometrically close to the final product. In the CAD/CAM industries, freeform surfaces are typically carved by 5-axis machining … Given an input 3D object represented by a closed two-manifold surface, we develop an algorithm to tackle two key technical problems in setup and tool path planning: (1) Surface decomposition. During setup, the core problem is to minimize the number of object or cutter setups (i.e., re-fixturing or re-orientation of the CNC cutter) to ensure accessibility of the entire input surface by the CNC cutter. To this end, we cover the input surface with a minimum number of accessible regions by posing and solving a set-cover problem; see Figure 2(b). … Together, these patches, which we refer to as machinable patches, form a decomposition of the input surface; see Figure 2(c). (2) Tool path planning. In the carving phase, for each machinable patch obtained from the decomposition step, we compute a continuous, space-filling, and iso-scallop tool path which conforms to the patch boundary, where iso-scollop paths seek to maximize uniformity of the scallop height over the patch … Then we develop a novel method to control the spacing of Fermat spirals based on directional surface curvature and adapt the heat method to obtain iso-scallop carving; see Figure 2(d).”).
wherein Zhao teaches the at least one manufacturability constraint causes at least one shape derivative used during the boundary-based generative design process to guide shape changes for the generative model toward discrete height layers corresponding to the subtractive manufacturing process.; (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1 (1st para of left side col.): “We present an automatic algorithm for subtractive manufacturing of freeform 3D objects using high-speed machining (HSM) via CNC. A CNC machine operates a cylindrical cutter to carve off material from a 3D shape stock, following a tool path, to “expose” the target object.” In page 137:4 under heading ‘Overview’ (at right side col.): “The input to our algorithm is a freeform 3D object represented as a 2-manifold triangle mesh. During preprocessing, the input mesh surface is first segmented into a small number of height fields. We compute height fields since each such surface region can be fully machined …”. It has been discussed here that the input mesh surface is first segmented into a small number of height fields, which indicates about discrete height layers corresponding to the subtractive manufacturing process.
Further, in page 137:7 under heading “Shape-aware tool path generation” (at right side col.): “Our key idea when computing the tool path is to obtain a shape aware metric tensor field g on the surface from the directional curvature tensor field G … Once the metric field is defined, the boundary ∂S is set to be the zero-level isoline, and then the other isolines are iteratively defined, with respect to g, by increasing the geodesic distance to the boundary ∂S by g during each step.” Moreover, it has been mentioned in Fig. 12 optimized tool path can be achieved by varying g on the surface in practice due to shape variation. Here, Zhao discussed about an algorithm for subtractive manufacturing of freeform 3D objects and obtained shape aware metric which is assumed as shape derivative while computing the tool path. This shape aware metric field or derivatives are defined at the boundary and shape variation happened while varying g (metric field) on the surface. Therefore, Zhao taught about shape derivative as one manufacturability constraint used during the boundary-based design process to guide shape changes 30toward discrete height layers corresponding to the subtractive manufacturing process).
and Zhao teaches program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to provide a three-dimensional model in accordance with the generative model, for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems that employ the subtractive manufacturing process. (Zhao disclosed in page 137:4-137:5 section 3 heading (at bottom) ‘Tool path planning’: “Given a machinable patch, we produce a single continuous space-filling curve for that patch using connected Fermat spirals. The main innovation is to ensure that the patch finishing using the spiral carving path is optimized for scallop quality, i.e., to compute an iso-scallop Fermat spiral. To this end, we adjust the path spacing based on directional curvature over the input surface path, to optimize uniformity of the resulting scallops. We show that an nonhomogeneous version of the heat method for geodesic computations can be adapted to compute iso-scallop level-set contours over the surface patch, from which we can extract the connected Fermat spiral paths. Each machinable patch is machined separately following the iso-scallop Fermat spiral paths under a fixed 3+2 machining setup.” Further, in page 137:9 section 6: “In this section, we show surface decomposition and tool path generation results for freeform 3D shapes with varying degrees of geometric complexity. Comparisons to conventional tool paths, i.e., zigzag and contour-parallel, for CNC machining are provided to evaluate our iso-scallop space filling curves using Fermat spirals. We also report real machining times and show fully machined 3D objects using a 3+2 machine with machining setups and tool paths planned by our fully automatic method.”).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao, to modify the system of machining/manufacturing using 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature of process of 2.5D CAM, to include the shape derivative as one manufacturability constrain and generation of one or more toolpath 5specifications with the subtractive manufacturing machine CNC machine from Zhao’s disclosure. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by Zhao (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1, 137:4, 137:7).
Regarding Claim 35, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 34, however, Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM do not explicitly teach the limitation “the generative model comprises a level-set representation of a three-dimensional topology for the object, and the boundary-based generative design process employs a level-set method of topology optimization”.
wherein Zhao teaches the generative model comprises a level-set representation of a three-dimensional topology for the object, and the boundary-based generative design process employs a level-set method of topology optimization. (Zhao disclosed in page 137:4-137:5 section 3 heading (at bottom) ‘Tool path planning’: “Given a machinable patch, we produce a single continuous space-filling curve for that patch using connected Fermat spirals. The main innovation is to ensure that the patch finishing using the spiral carving path is optimized for scallop quality, i.e., to compute an iso-scallop Fermat spiral. To this end, we adjust the path spacing based on directional curvature over the input surface path, to optimize uniformity of the resulting scallops. We show that an nonhomogeneous version of the heat method for geodesic computations can be adapted to compute iso-scallop level-set contours over the surface patch, from which we can extract the connected Fermat spiral paths. Each machinable patch is machined separately following the iso-scallop Fermat spiral paths under a fixed 3+2 machining setup.” Further, in page 137:9 section 6: “In this section, we show surface decomposition and tool path generation results for freeform 3D shapes with varying degrees of geometric complexity. Comparisons to conventional tool paths, i.e., zigzag and contour-parallel, for CNC machining are provided to evaluate our iso-scallop space filling curves using Fermat spirals. We also report real machining times and show fully machined 3D objects using a 3+2 machine with machining setups and tool paths planned by our fully automatic method.”).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao, to modify the system of machining/manufacturing using 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature of process of 2.5D CAM, to include the shape derivative as one manufacturability constrain and generation of one or more toolpath 5specifications with the subtractive manufacturing machine CNC machine from Zhao’s disclosure. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by Zhao (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1, 137:4, 137:7).
Regarding Claim 36, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 34, Vouzelaud teaches design process guides the shape changes for the generative model toward side walls for the discrete height layers that are parallel to a milling direction of the manufacturing process (Under broadest reasonable interpretation, it seems every milling operation will have profile layers which are “guided” to side walls in that the thickness between z-levels necessarily is a small wall of sorts. These walls almost inherently are parallel to the tool path and thus parallel to a milling direction. Given the breadth of this claim term it seems like any possible fitting process reads on a process which guides the shape changes. Specifically, regarding the derivative being used to guide the process.
Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 7 lines 16-28: “Predicting the geometrical error that arises between a stacked layer model and its object, is analogous to the comparison between a 2D unknown function which is reconstructed from points on its curve, and the actual curve from which the points are extracted. If the interval between points on the curve is constant, the interpolation is improved when the first and second derivatives are known at each point. If the length of the interval between the points on the curve is increased or decreased depending upon the degree of curvature in such interval, then the straight lines which connect adjacent ones of these points on the curve will be a better approximation of the actual curve.”).
However, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “design process guides the 2.5- axis subtractive manufacturing process”.
2.5D CAM teaches design process guides the 2.5- axis subtractive manufacturing process. (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM before him or her, to modify the machining/manufacturing process of Vouzelaud to include the 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature machining of 2.5D CAM because Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by 2.5D CAM (2.5D CAM disclosed in YouTube video’s “2.5 Axis Machining CAM” transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” in timestamp of 00:17 to 00:55).
However, Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM do not explicitly teach the limitation “the at least one shape derivative used during the boundary-based generative design process guides the shape changes for the generative model”.
wherein Zhao teaches the at least one shape derivative used during the boundary-based generative design process guides the shape changes for the generative model (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1 (1st para of left side col.): “We present an automatic algorithm for subtractive manufacturing of freeform 3D objects using high-speed machining (HSM) via CNC. A CNC machine operates a cylindrical cutter to carve off material from a 3D shape stock, following a tool path, to “expose” the target object.” In page 137:4 under heading ‘Overview’ (at right side col.): “The input to our algorithm is a freeform 3D object represented as a 2-manifold triangle mesh. During preprocessing, the input mesh surface is first segmented into a small number of height fields. We compute height fields since each such surface region can be fully machined …”. It has been discussed here that the input mesh surface is first segmented into a small number of height fields, which indicates about discrete height layers corresponding to the subtractive manufacturing process.
Further, in page 137:7 under heading “Shape-aware tool path generation” (at right side col.): “Our key idea when computing the tool path is to obtain a shape aware metric tensor field g on the surface from the directional curvature tensor field G … Once the metric field is defined, the boundary ∂S is set to be the zero-level isoline, and then the other isolines are iteratively defined, with respect to g, by increasing the geodesic distance to the boundary ∂S by g during each step.” Moreover, it has been mentioned in Fig. 12 optimized tool path can be achieved by varying g on the surface in practice due to shape variation. Here, Zhao discussed about an algorithm for subtractive manufacturing of freeform 3D objects and obtained shape aware metric which is assumed as shape derivative while computing the tool path. This shape aware metric field or derivatives are defined at the boundary and shape variation happened while varying g (metric field) on the surface. Therefore, Zhao taught about shape derivative as one manufacturability constraint used during the boundary-based design process to guide shape changes 30toward discrete height layers corresponding to the subtractive manufacturing process).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao, to modify the system of machining/manufacturing using 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature of process of 2.5D CAM, to include the shape derivative as one manufacturability constrain and generation of one or more toolpath 5specifications with the subtractive manufacturing machine CNC machine from Zhao’s disclosure. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by Zhao (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1, 137:4, 137:7).
Regarding Claim 37, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 36, however, Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM do not explicitly teach the limitations “the design space comprises a bounding volume containing an initial specification of one or more outer shapes of the three-dimensional topology for the object, and the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to perform the boundary-based generative design process comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to extend the one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology to fill the bounding volume in the milling direction”.
wherein Zhao teaches the design space comprises a bounding volume containing an initial specification of one or more outer shapes of the three-dimensional topology for the object, (Zhao disclosed in page 137:6-137:7 section 5: “Once the surface is decomposed into a collection of surface patches, a tool path plan is designed for each patch. … For carving the surface, one needs to plan the path of a ball-end cutter, which has some physical prescribed radius, and hence implies two key requirements: … To obtain uniform scallop on a surface, the gap between two neighboring paths needs to be adaptive to the directional curvatures of the points along two nearby paths. This requirement is the most distinct feature of this tool path planning problem. Smoothness. Generally speaking, a smooth tool path is preferred in practice due to the upper limit of velocity and the acceleration of the cutter. … Based on these two requirements, we design a three-step algorithm for generating the final tool path: (1) compute a shape aware scalar field whose isolines meet the gap requirement, (2) connect the isolines into a continuous tool path using the Fermat spiral generation technique, and (3) smooth the tool path while keeping the gap varying as small as possible.” The disclosure “compute a shape aware scalar field whose isolines meet the gap requirement; connect the isolines into a continuous tool path using the Fermat spiral generation technique” correspond to claim limitation “design space comprises a bounding volume containing an initial specification of one or more outer shapes”.
Further, in page 137:9 section 6: “In this section, we show surface decomposition and tool path generation results for freeform 3D shapes with varying degrees of geometric complexity. Comparisons to conventional tool paths, i.e., zigzag and contour-parallel, for CNC machining are provided to evaluate our iso-scallop space filling curves using Fermat spirals. … We produce physical machining of full 3D objects with high-quality surface finishing, ...”. This disclosure corresponds to claim limitation “one or more outer shapes of the three-dimensional topology for the object”).
and Zhao teaches the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to perform the boundary-based generative design process (Zhao disclosed in page 137:2 section 1 (right col.): “Given an input 3D object represented by a closed two-manifold surface, we develop an algorithm to tackle two key technical problems in setup and tool path planning: (1) Surface decomposition. During setup, the core problem is to minimize the number of object or cutter setups (i.e., re-fixturing or re-orientation of the CNC cutter) to ensure accessibility of the entire input surface by the CNC cutter. To this end, we cover the input surface with a minimum number of accessible regions by posing and solving a set-cover problem; see Figure 2(b). … Together, these patches, which we refer to as machinable patches, form a decomposition of the input surface; see Figure 2(c). (2) Tool path planning. In the carving phase, for each machinable patch obtained from the decomposition step, we compute a continuous, space-filling, and iso-scallop tool path which conforms to the patch boundary, where iso-scollop paths seek to maximize uniformity of the scallop height over the patch … Then we develop a novel method to control the spacing of Fermat spirals based on directional surface curvature and adapt the heat method to obtain iso-scallop carving; see Figure 2(d).”).
Zhao teaches boundary-based generative design process comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to extend the one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology to fill the bounding volume in the milling direction. (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1: “We present an automatic algorithm for subtractive manufacturing of freeform 3D objects using high-speed machining (HSM) via CNC. … Our method decomposes the input object’s surface into a small number of patches each of which is fully accessible and machinable by the CNC machine, in continuous fashion, under a fixed cutter-object setup configuration. … We demonstrate automatic generation of accessible and machinable surface decompositions and iso-scallop Fermat spiral carving paths for freeform 3D objects.” In page 137:7 section 5.1 (right col.): “Our key idea when computing the tool path is to obtain a shape aware metric tensor field g on the surface from the directional curvature tensor field G, and use its isolines as the tool paths with the required uniform scallop. Once the metric field is defined, the boundary ∂S is set to be the zero-level isoline, and then the other isolines are iteratively defined, with respect to g, by increasing the geodesic distance to the boundary ∂S by g during each step. We recall that a fast marching method can be used for this purpose. After the isoline Li has been extracted, it can be used to generate Li+1 by considering the projected metric tensor …”. This disclosure “the boundary ∂S is set to be the zero-level isoline, and then the other isolines are iteratively defined; by increasing the geodesic distance to the boundary ∂S by g during each step” corresponds to claim limitation “extend the one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology to fill the bounding volume in the milling direction”).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao, to modify the system of machining/manufacturing using 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature of process of 2.5D CAM, to include the shape derivative as one manufacturability constrain and generation of one or more toolpath 5specifications with the subtractive manufacturing machine CNC machine from Zhao’s disclosure. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by Zhao (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1, 137:4, 137:7).
Regarding Claim 39, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 34, however, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “(ii) two or more available milling directions for the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process”.
2.5D CAM teaches (ii) two or more available milling directions for the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process, (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM before him or her, to modify the machining/manufacturing process of Vouzelaud to include the 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature machining of 2.5D CAM because Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by 2.5D CAM (2.5D CAM disclosed in YouTube video’s “2.5 Axis Machining CAM” transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” in timestamp of 00:17 to 00:55).
However, Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM do not explicitly teach the limitations “the at least one manufacturability constraint comprises (i) a number of the discrete height layers, the number being determined by user input or by automatic detection, and the two or more available milling directions being determined by user input or by automatic detection.”
wherein Zhao teaches the at least one manufacturability constraint comprises (i) a number of the discrete height layers, the number being determined by user input or by automatic detection, and the two or more available milling directions being determined by user input or by automatic detection. (Zhao disclosed in page 137:3 section 2: “CNC machining operates a cylindrical cutter with a prescribed length and size (measured on the cutter’s horizontal profile) and goes around in 3D space with its head spinning at high speed to carve off material from a shape stock. … The fine lines of residuals left between adjacent tool paths after surface finishing are referred to as scallop; see Figure 3. The height and width of the scallop should be properly controlled and they depend on path spacing, cutter orientation, and surface curvature. … 3-axis machining or pocket milling is similar to layered manufacturing as it also traverses a 2D domain, … the cutter of a 3+2 machine has a fixed orientation and moves in x, y, z directions only. In both cases, the cutters typically only point downward at an oblique angle, not upward. As well, it is desirable that the cutter orientation does not deviate from the surface normal too much to bound the scallop height.”
Further, in page 137:4 section 3: “The input to our algorithm is a freeform 3D object represented as a 2-manifold triangle mesh. During preprocessing, the input mesh surface is first segmented into a small number of height fields. We compute height fields since each such surface region can be fully machined by a 3+2 machine with a fixed cutter orientation and fixed cutter-object setup. Then we cover the input surface by a minimum number of accessible regions and integrate the resulting regions with the pre-segmentation to obtain a small number of machinable surface patches, which form a decomposition of the input surface. Tool path planning is carried out for each patch to obtain a continuous space-filling curve attaining maximal scallop uniformity. Figure 2 illustrates the algorithm pipeline.”).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao, to modify the system of machining/manufacturing using 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature of process of 2.5D CAM, to include the shape derivative as one manufacturability constrain and generation of one or more toolpath 5specifications with the subtractive manufacturing machine CNC machine from Zhao’s disclosure. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by Zhao (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1, 137:4, 137:7).
Regarding Claim 41, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 34, however, Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM do not explicitly teach the limitation “the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to perform the boundary-based generative design process comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to find a number of and locations for the discrete height layers”.
wherein Zhao teaches the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to perform the boundary-based generative design process comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to find a number of and locations for the discrete height layers. (Zhao disclosed in page 137:4 section 3 (right col.): “The input to our algorithm is a freeform 3D object represented as a 2-manifold triangle mesh. During preprocessing, the input mesh surface is first segmented into a small number of height fields. We compute height fields since each such surface region can be fully machined by a 3+2 machine with a fixed cutter orientation and fixed cutter-object setup. Then we cover the input surface by a minimum number of accessible regions and integrate the resulting regions with the pre-segmentation to obtain a small number of machinable surface patches, which form a decomposition of the input surface. … Typically, the optimal solution incurs significant overlaps between the accessible regions. We resolve these overlaps and arrive at a surface decomposition by integrating the accessible regions with the pre-segmented height fields. This is followed by boundary optimization to obtain the set of machinable patches.”
In page 137:6 section 4 (right col.): “we first identify any height field that contains surface points which belong to some non-overlapping part of one and only one accessible region; we assign the orientation label associated with this accessible region to the height field; see Figure 8(a). Then we propagate, recursively, orientation labels from assigned height fields to adjacent unassigned ones only when they are entirely covered by an overlap between appropriate accessible regions. For example, height field H1, with label from accessible region R1, propagates its label to H2 only when H2 is entirely covered by an overlap involving R1; see Figure 8(b).”).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao, to modify the system of machining/manufacturing using 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature of process of 2.5D CAM, to include the shape derivative as one manufacturability constrain and generation of one or more toolpath 5specifications with the subtractive manufacturing machine CNC machine from Zhao’s disclosure. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by Zhao (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1, 137:4, 137:7).
Regarding Claim 42, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 34, wherein Vouzelaud teaches the at least one manufacturability constraint comprises an internal corner of the generative model having a radius equal to or greater than a tool corner radius of a milling tool (Vouzelaud disclosed in col. 14 lines 1-11: “Referring to FIG. 8A, the radius of curvature of the spherical end mill is r, and the point 30 of spherical end mill 26 is tangent to the slice Zi. The profile 19 of the desired object intersects with the slice Zi at the point I2. The line T1T2 intersects with the point I2 and is tangent with the edge 31 of the spherical end mill 26 at point Tt at an angle α to the slice Zi. The profile 19 of the desired object is tangent to the edge 31 of the spherical end mill 26 at point Tb. The distance between point 30 and I2 is d, which is the lateral offset of the mill 26 that relates to the geometry and the angle α.” In col. 15 lines 40-66: “The region of the geometrical error in the vertical plane shown in FIG. 10A is indicated by the cross hatched region. … The straight line T1T2 defines the approximated slope of the profile of the desired object and is tangent at point Tt to the profile 31 of the mill located at its Zi position. … The distance m is the horizontal distance that the mill must move as the tip 30 of the mill 26 moves vertically from the level of slice Zi to the level of slice Zi+1. The radius of curvature of the spherical end of the mill is r, which equals the sum of 1 and m. The distance between the successive positions 32 and 32' of the center of curvatures of the mill is p.”).
However, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “a milling tool used in the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process”.
2.5D CAM teaches a milling tool used in the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process. (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM before him or her, to modify the machining/manufacturing process of Vouzelaud to include the 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature machining of 2.5D CAM because Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by 2.5D CAM (2.5D CAM disclosed in YouTube video’s “2.5 Axis Machining CAM” transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” in timestamp of 00:17 to 00:55).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao and further in view of an NPL “Applications of additive manufacturing technologies for aerodynamic tests” by Răzvan Udroiu (hereinafter Udroiu, NPL published on 2010).
Regarding Claim 40, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 39, however, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao do not explicitly teach the limitation “the two or more available milling directions comprise at least one off-axis milling direction.
wherein Udroiu teaches the two or more available milling directions comprise at least one off-axis milling direction. (Examiner would construe the claim element “off-axis” as “side-holes” feature as per Specification of current Application para [00130].
Udroiu disclosed in page 98-99 section 5.2-5.3: “In figure 7 it is presented a sequence from the 3D printing process. … Using polyjet technology it can be obtained parts with very small detail such as very thin walls (down to 0.4 mm) and small holes (up to 0.5 mm in diameter). … The rapid prototypes obtained by polyjet technology (fig.10) can be machining (milling, drilling, etc.), gluing, painting and metal coating. In this case the two side holes were threaded (fig. 11) …”).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM, Zhao and Udroiu are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM, Zhao and Udroiu to modify the milling direction in Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao’s teachings, to include off-axis” milling direction or “side-holes” feature in Udroiu’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Udroiu because “The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that additive manufacturing technologies (AMT) can be effectively applied for fabricating test models used in aerodynamic experimental investigations. One of the most popular AMT used worldwide is 3D printing (3DP). 3D printing technologies can be divided in the following groups: inkjet printing fused deposition modelling and polyjet. The present work is focused on applications of polyjet technology for manufacturing wind tunnel test models.” (Udroiu disclosed in page 96 under ‘Abstract’).
Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao and further in view of a dissertation thesis “A Unified Approach for Integrated Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing” by Huang, Bin (hereinafter Bin, dissertation published on 2013).
Regarding Claim 43, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 34, however, Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM do not explicitly teach the limitation “the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to perform the boundary-based generative design process comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to produce two or more generative models in accordance with the one or more design criteria and variations in the discrete height layers, milling directions, or both,”
wherein Zhao teaches the program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to perform the boundary-based generative design process comprises program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to produce two or more generative models in accordance with the one or more design criteria and variations in the discrete height layers, milling directions, or both, (Zhao disclosed in page 137:6 heading ‘Overlap resolution’: “A MINORI solution typically contains many cells that are accessible from more than one object orientation. Thus, the accessible regions in a MINORI are expected to overlap significantly; see Figure 7. … By definition, an accessible region thus obtained can be fully accessed by the CNC, assuming that the CNC cutter can be oriented differently. However, when machining a surface piece, the cutter orientation is fixed in a 3+2-axis setup. For the piece to be fully machinable with that fixed orientation, the piece must be a height field. Hence, to re solve the overlap and obtain a surface decomposition into 3+2-axis machinable patches, we must integrate the accessible regions from a MINORI with the height fields computed from pre-segmentation.” In same page heading ‘Integrating accessible regions and height fields’: “we first identify any height field that contains surface points which belong to some non-overlapping part of one and only one accessible region; we assign the orientation label associated with this accessible region to the height field; see Figure 8(a). … The integration step keeps the number of accessible regions or fixture setups fixed, but can split a height field. The above assignment procedure aims to keep such splits to a minimum since the final number of height field pieces (i.e., the machinable patches for tool path planning) corresponds to how many times the 3+2-axis CNC machine needs to be re-oriented.”).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao, to modify the system of machining/manufacturing using 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature of process of 2.5D CAM, to include the shape derivative as one manufacturability constrain and generation of one or more toolpath 5specifications with the subtractive manufacturing machine CNC machine from Zhao’s disclosure. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by Zhao (Zhao disclosed in page 137:1, 137:4, 137:7).
However, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao do not explicitly teach the limitation “program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to prepare and present an analysis of trade-offs between or among the two or more generative models based at least in part on the variations in the discrete height layers, the milling directions, or both”
and Bin teaches the non-transitory storage medium encodes: program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to prepare and present an analysis of trade-offs between or among the two or more generative models based at least in part on the variations in the discrete height layers, the milling directions, or both. (Under BRI and conventional meaning in the art, Examiner would construe the claim element “trade-offs” as adjustment of two scenarios (e.g., discrete height layers, the milling directions, as claimed).
Bin disclosed in page 132-133 section 7.2: “Once the cutter center is determined, the resulting scallop surface can be derived by iterating and adjusting the position of the grid points that are cut by the tool. The heights of the grid points on the initial scallop surface are adjusted based on the deviation distance between the tool surface and scallop surface. … As shown in Figure 7-8, given a grid node on the initial surface, Gi,j, if it is located inside the tool when the tool is being placed at Cw,v, … In this case, the coordinate vector of Gi,j should be adjusted to the lower position, at which machining surface has no interference against tool. Assuming the tool is a ball-end cutter, its geometrical model can be simplified to an infinite rod with a half-spherical end, as depicted in Equation (7-2), … where only the Z-coordinate of the cut surface needs to be changed, while other two coordinates keep the same value. … However, Gi,j has already been adjusted before is possibly still inside of the tool, the cutter has moved to Cw,v, and consequently Gi,j should be adjusted to a lower position until there is no interference between the grid height of the grid node at (i, j) and the tool tip when it moves along the tool path.” In page 2 under bullet points 4 and 5, it has been disclosed: “This research aims to exploit a generic method of tool path generation based on the parameterization technology. … By adjusting the embedding distribution of tool path in 2D parametric space, the scallop height of the surface in 3D space can be easily controlled. with the parameterization of both 2D and 3D freeform model, this research also provides a method for tool path optimization. With the error control of scallop height, the tool path will be adjusted to control the error of cut surface from the desired surface. Meanwhile, this research proposes a new method that can numerically simulate the scallop surface of cut stock.”
The disclosure above teaches the limitation “an analysis of trade-offs (e.g., adjustment in tool path in 2D space where the scallop height of the surface in 3D space can be controlled) between or among the two or more generative models based at least in part on the variations in the discrete height layers, the milling directions”).
Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM, Zhao and Bin are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM, Zhao and Bin, to modify producing two or more generative models as per one or more design criteria such as discrete height layers, the milling directions in Zhao’s teaching, to include analysis or adjustment between the two or more generative models based on the variations of discrete height layers, the milling directions in Bin’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Bin because “With the embedding formed from the parametric mapping, the original surface can easily be converted into a structured grid. The iso-parametric embedded curves are generated in the Euclidean space from parametric space by reverse mapping. The optimal tool path pattern is to maximize the step over size of the tool path while keeping the scallop height within the required tolerance. The best tool path is to optimize the step over of the tool path to eliminate the unnecessary passes and minimize the total cutting length, while controlling the scallop height within the required range.” (Bin disclosed in page 111 section 6.3.3 and in page 136 section 7.4).
Regarding Claim 44, Vouzelaud, 2.5D CAM and Zhao teach the system of claim 43, wherein Vouzelaud teaches the three-dimensional model being a model of the object. (Vouzelaud disclosed in page col. 1 lines 7-14: “The present invention relates to a method of modeling a solid three-dimensional object and relates more particularly to a method of preparing a model that consists of a plurality of layers stacked atop one another wherein the boundary edge of each layer may vary from the boundary edge of its adjacent layer (above or below) or layers (above and below) to conform to contours in the shape of the object.”)
However, Vouzelaud doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process is used to manufacture the physical structure directly,
2.5D CAM teaches the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process is used to manufacture the physical structure directly, (YouTube video’s transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” on “2.5 Axis Machining CAM”: “00:11 you all have one thing in common you
00:13 want a professional cam solution
00:15 designed with all the tools you need to
00:17 work the way that you work well Autodesk
00:19 fusion 360 allows users to create tool
00:22 paths for all their two-and-a-half axis
00:24 machining projects …
00:33 that we support rest machining custom
00:35 form tools and even allow you to create
00:38 an unlimited number of machining
00:40 templates the bottom line here
00:42 Autodesk fusion 360 is a real
00:43 programming tool …
00:48 Autodesk fusion 360 includes a powerful
00:50 and dynamic tool path simulation so
00:53 users can see what they'll be machining
00:55 long before they post their files and
00:57 speaking of post fusion 360 includes a
01:00 post processing system including a full
01:02 library of editable post processors for
01:05 the industry's most popular machines …”. Here, it has been discussed that Autodesk fusion 360 is a programming tool that includes a powerful and dynamic tool path simulation where user can machine or manufacture any object or solid model or structure. Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects).
Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM are analogous because they are related to perform machining/manufacturing using CAD/CAM programs which allow users to plan the tool paths for programming a machine tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vouzelaud and 2.5D CAM before him or her, to modify the machining/manufacturing process of Vouzelaud to include the 2.5-axis machining or 2.5D form feature machining of 2.5D CAM because Autodesk fusion 360 allows users to create tool paths for all their two-and-a-half axis or 2.5 axis machining projects. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious and such motivation is found by 2.5D CAM (2.5D CAM disclosed in YouTube video’s “2.5 Axis Machining CAM” transcript from “Autodesk Fusion 360” in timestamp of 00:17 to 00:55).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 20-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claims 20-25 are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification none of the references of record, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claim 20, specifically: “program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process, including program code to detect at least a portion of a first smooth curve for a first of the discrete height layers that is almost coincident with at least a portion of a second smooth curve for a second of the discrete height layers, and program code to replace the at least a portion of the first smooth curve for the first of the discrete height layers with the at least a portion of the second smooth curve for the second of the discrete height layers;” either taken by itself or in any combination, would have anticipated or made obvious the abovementioned subject matter of the present application at or before the time it was filed. The indication of allowability is not solely on the basis of the quoted limitation but instead based upon the totality of the claim and is based on limitations, context and environment not explicitly recited in the quotes or expounded upon in the reasons for allowance.
Regarding claims 21-25, the dependent claims are allowable as they depend upon allowable independent claim 20 with the appropriate filing of Terminal Disclaimer and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent claim 38 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 34, but would be allowable, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcomes the 103 rejections. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: When reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims, specifically: “extending the one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology to fill the bounding volume in each of the two or more milling directions, thereby forming two or more sets of one or more extended shapes; and changing the one or more outer shapes to be a Boolean intersection of the two or more sets of one or more extended shapes for a next iteration” either taken by itself or in any combination, would have anticipated or made obvious the abovementioned subject matter of the present application at or before the time it was filed. The indication of allowability is not solely on the basis of the quoted limitation but instead based upon the totality of the claim and is based on limitations, context and environment not explicitly recited in the quotes or expounded upon in the reasons for allowance.
Prior Art of Record
11. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Prior art of reference “Contour curve reconstruction from cloud data for rapid
prototyping” by F. Javidrad disclosed “obtaining, by a computer aided design (CAD)
program, a first model of an object to be manufactured using a 2.5-axis subtractive
manufacturing process, wherein the first model comprises smooth curves fit to contours
representing discrete height layers of the object to be manufactured using the 2.5-axis
subtractive manufacturing process; modifying, by the CAD program, at least one of the
smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process”; reshaping,
by the CAD program responsive to the user input, a subset of the smooth curves in the
at least one of the discrete height layers to change the solid 3D model;”
The Prior art Vouzelaud disclosed a method of automatically operating a machine with respect to an object having a desired profile, wherein the machine's operation is controlled based on a model of the object's profile. The method includes generating at least a portion of the model in the form of a plurality of successive layers wherein the cross-section of each layer is defined by the intersection of a pair of parallel planes and a model profile connecting the parallel planes. Each layer's thickness is selected such that the geometrical error between the object's desired profile and the model profile of the layer remains no greater than a preselected geometrical error. More than one layer thickness is selected during the step of generating this portion of the object. The machine can be operated in successive steps with each step based on a separate one of the layers.
However, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims, specifically: “program code that, when run, causes the one or more data processing apparatus to modify at least one of the smooth curves to facilitate the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process, including program code to detect at least a portion of a first smooth curve for a first of the discrete height layers that is almost coincident with at least a portion of a second smooth curve for a second of the discrete height layers, and program code to replace the at least a portion of the first smooth curve for the first of the discrete height layers with the at least a portion of the second smooth curve for the second of the discrete height layers;” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention, as presented in independent claim 20 of the instant application.
The Prior art BÄCHER et al. (Pub. No. US2019/0366703A1), disclosed a three - dimensional (3D) printer system is provided for generating optimized 3D print control files and for printing 3D objects optimized to withstand compressive and tensile stresses due to worst-case loads. The system includes a 3D printer adapted for printing 3D objects using a build material (e.g., a binder jetting printer that uses sand or concrete - like material for the build material). The system further includes an optimization system with memory storing a 3D model of an object and a processor executing software code to provide functions of a structural optimization tool. The structural optimization tool takes as input the 3D model of the object, strength and material parameters for the build material, and a set of loads (e.g., parameterized loads as uncertainty can be parameterized here (e.g., the position of the live loads within a particular region or the wind direction for wind loads)). Further, the structural optimization tool processes the input to first generate a set of worst-case loads for the 3D model of the object from the set of loads and to second generate an output print file defining a plurality of wall thicknesses (which may provide the interior structure and may support topological changes) for an optimized version of the 3D model of the object that is adapted to withstand the set of worst-case loads.
The Prior art Zhao et al. (“DSCarver: Decompose-and-Spiral-Carve for Subtractive Manufacturing”) presented an automatic algorithm for subtractive manufacturing of freeform 3D objects using high-speed machining (HSM) via CNC. The method decomposes the input object’s surface into a small number of patches each of which is fully accessible and machinable by the CNC machine, in continuous fashion, under a fixed cutter-object setup configuration. This is achieved by covering the input surface with a minimum number of accessible regions and then extracting a set of machinable patches from each accessible region. For each patch obtained, a continuous, space-filling, and iso-scallop tool path is computed which conforms to the patch boundary, enabling efficient carving with high-quality surface finishing. The tool path is generated in the form of connected Fermat spirals, which have been generalized from a 2D fill pattern for layered manufacturing to work for curved surfaces. Furthermore, a novel method is developed to control the spacing of Fermat spirals based on directional surface curvature and adapt the heat method to obtain iso scallop carving. The automatic generation of accessible and machinable surface decompositions and iso-scallop Fermat spiral carving paths for freeform 3D objects is demonstrated.
However, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the dependent claim 38, specifically: “extending the one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology to fill the bounding volume in each of the two or more milling directions, thereby forming two or more sets of one or more extended shapes; and changing the one or more outer shapes to be a Boolean intersection of the two or more sets of one or more extended shapes for a next iteration”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention, as presented in dependent claim 38 of the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUPUR DEBNATH whose telephone number is (571)272-8161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am -4:30 pm.
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, Renee D Chavez can be reached on (571)270-1104. 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.
/NUPUR DEBNATH/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights