DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 10/18/2022. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,328107. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Pending Application
US 11,328107
US 11,328107
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating a nominal computer-aided design (CAD) image of a component;
producing a physical representation of the component from the nominal CAD image using an additive manufacturing (AM) process;
measuring the physical representation of the component to obtain measurement data;
determining a deviation between a geometry of the nominal CAD image and the measurement data of the physical representation of the component;
determining a compensation field based on the determined deviation between the geometry of the nominal CAD image and the measurement data of the physical representation of the component;
modifying the nominal CAD image by the compensation field, where the compensation field is further created using constrained morphing, wherein all points of the nominal CAD image are morphed by one of multi-levels, while points in a user-specified region are morphed through additional levels if an acceptable tolerance is not reached and if an acceptable tolerance is reached then not applying additional b-spline morphing or changing levels; and
producing a physical part representation of the component from the modified nominal CAD image.
Claim 8. A method comprising:
receiving a nominal computer-aided design (CAD) model of a component;
producing a first physical representation of the component based on the nominal CAD model using an additive manufacturing process;
measuring the first physical representation of the component to obtain measurement data of the first physical representation of the component;
determining a deviation between a geometry of the nominal CAD model and the measurement data of the first physical representation of the component;
calculating a nonlinear scale factor map using an iterative simulation process, wherein the nonlinear scale factor map comprises a map associating a plurality of locations of the CAD model to corresponding ones of a plurality of scale factors respectively representing an increase or a decrease in an amount of distortion compensation to be applied based at least in part on a simulated effect of the component in response to the iterative simulation process;
determining a compensation field indicating the amount of distortion compensation to be applied across at least a portion of the component, wherein the amount of distortion compensation corresponds at least in part to a multiplication product of (i) the deviation between the geometry of the nominal CAD model and the measurement data of the first physical representation of the component, and (ii) the nonlinear scale factor map;
modifying the nominal CAD model by the compensation field; and
producing a second physical representation of the component based on the modified nominal CAD model.
para [0026], “a multi-level B-spline morphing process”; para [0034], “the approximation and extrapolation may be performed by a multi-level B-spline morphing process”; Fig. 2, “Within tolerance”, “Yes”, “End”)
Claim 8. A computer-program stored on non-transitory, processor readable medium, the computer program containing programming instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to:
generate a nominal computer-aided design (CAD) image of a component;
produce a physical representation of the component from the nominal CAD image using an additive manufacturing (AM) process;
measure the physical representation of the component to obtain measurement data;
determine a deviation between a geometry of the nominal CAD image and the measurement data of the physical representation of the component;
determine a compensation field based on the determined deviation between the geometry of the nominal CAD image and the measurement data of the physical representation of the component;
modify the nominal CAD image by the compensation field, where the compensation field is further created using constrained morphing, wherein all points of the nominal CAD image are morphed by one of multi-levels, while points in a user-specified region are morphed through additional levels if an acceptable tolerance is not reached and if an acceptable tolerance is reached then not applying additional b-spline morphing or changing levels; and
produce a physical part representation of the component from the modified nominal CAD image.
17. A non-transitory computer readable medium having executable instructions stored therein, the medium comprising:
instructions to receive a nominal computer-aided design (CAD) model of a component;
instructions to produce a first physical representation of the component based on the nominal CAD model using an additive manufacturing process;
instructions to measure the first physical representation of the component to obtain measurement data of the first physical representation of the component;
instructions to determine a deviation between a geometry of the nominal CAD model and the measurement data of the first physical representation of the component;
instructions to calculate a nonlinear scale factor map using an iterative simulation process, wherein the nonlinear scale factor map comprises a map associating a plurality of locations of the CAD model to corresponding ones of a plurality of scale factors respectively representing an increase or a decrease in an amount of distortion compensation to be applied based at least in part on a simulated effect of the component in response to the iterative simulation process;
instructions to determine a compensation field indicating the amount of distortion compensation to be applied across at least a portion of the component, wherein the amount of distortion compensation corresponds at least in part to a multiplication product of (i) the deviation between the geometry of the nominal CAD model and the measurement data of the first physical representation of the component, and (ii) the nonlinear scale factor map;
instructions to modify the nominal CAD model by the compensation field; and
instructions to produce a second physical representation of the component based on the modified nominal CAD model.
para [0026], “a multi-level B-spline morphing process”; para [0034], “the approximation and extrapolation may be performed by a multi-level B-spline morphing process”; Fig. 2, “Within tolerance”, “Yes”, “End”)
Claim 14. A system comprising: an additive manufacturing device operative to fabricate a first component; a geometrical compensation module that is communicatively coupled with the additive manufacturing device; and
a non-transitory memory in communication with the additive manufacturing device, the memory storing program instructions, the geometrical compensation module operative with the program instructions and the additive manufacturing device to perform functions as follows:
generating a nominal computer-aided design (CAD) image of a component;
producing a physical representation of the component from the nominal CAD image using an additive manufacturing (AM) process;
measuring the physical representation of the component to obtain measurement data;
determining a deviation between a geometry of the nominal CAD image and the measurement data of the physical representation of the component;
determining a compensation field based on the determined deviation between the geometry of the nominal CAD image and the measurement data of the physical representation of the component;
modifying the nominal CAD image by the compensation field, where the compensation field is further created using constrained morphing, wherein all points of the nominal CAD image are morphed by one of multi-levels, while points in a user-specified region are morphed through additional levels if an acceptable tolerance is not reached and if an acceptable tolerance is reached then not applying additional b-spline morphing or changing levels; and
producing a physical part representation of the component from the modified nominal CAD image.
Claim 1. A system comprising: a memory storing executable program instructions therein; and a processor in communication with the memory, the processor operative to execute the program instructions to:
receive a nominal computer-aided design (CAD) model of a component;
produce a first physical representation of the component based on the nominal CAD model using an additive manufacturing process;
measure the first physical representation of the component to obtain measurement data of the first physical representation of the component;
determine a deviation between a geometry of the nominal CAD model and the measurement data of the first physical representation of the component;
calculate a nonlinear scale factor map using an iterative simulation process, wherein the nonlinear scale factor map comprises a map associating a plurality of locations of the CAD model to corresponding ones of a plurality of scale factors respectively representing an increase or a decrease in an amount of distortion compensation to be applied based at least in part on a simulated effect upon the component in response to the iterative simulation process;
determine a compensation field indicating the amount of distortion compensation to be applied across at least a portion of the component, wherein the amount of distortion compensation corresponds at least in part to a multiplication product of (i) the deviation between the geometry of the nominal CAD model and the measurement data of the first physical representation of the component, and (ii) the nonlinear scale factor map;
modify the nominal CAD model by the compensation field; and
produce a second physical representation of the component based on the modified nominal CAD model.
Fig. 1, “Additive Manufacturing (AM) system” 101
para [0026], “a multi-level B-spline morphing process”; para [0034], “the approximation and extrapolation may be performed by a multi-level B-spline morphing process”; Fig. 2, “Within tolerance”, “Yes”, “End”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein all points of the nominal CAD image are morphed by one of multi-levels, while points in a user-specified region are morphed through additional levels if an acceptable tolerance is not reached and if an acceptable tolerance is reached then not applying additional b-spline morphing or changing levels”. First, it is advised that the claim be amended to recite “morphed by one of a plurality of levels”. Second, it is unclear if the user-specified region is morphed first using the multi-levels and then using the additional levels, or if the user-specified region only uses the additional levels for the morphing without the multi-levels. Third the phrase “not applying additional b-spline morphing” implies that ‘b-spline morphing’ was previously recited in the claim when it was not. Fourth, it is unclear which levels are being “changed”, the multi-levels or the additional levels. Any application of prior art is the Examiner’s best interpretation of the claimed subject matter.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 3, line 3 recites “the x, y, and z axis” which lacks antecedent support. Claims 10 and 16 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 5 recites “Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing” with capitalized letters. It is unclear why they are capitalized and if they are specific terms of art. In addition, line 2 recites “the entire component” which lacks antecedent support. Claims 12 and 18 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 6 recites “the surface” which lacks antecedent support. Claims 13 and 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-13 are drawn to a computer program. The program is interpreted to comprise only software elements. According to the current guidance, a system that qualifies as a patent eligible system under 35 USC 101 cannot consist only of software per se. If the system consists only of software per se, the system is not a patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Because the instant claims could comprise software per se, the claims are being held as non-statutory under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0074028 A1 (“Yang”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Yang teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating a nominal computer-aided design (CAD) image of a component (Yang: claim 1, “receive a nominal computer-aided design (CAD) model of a component”);
producing a physical representation of the component from the nominal CAD image using
an additive manufacturing (AM) process (Yang: claim 1, “produce a physical representation of the component based on the CAD model using an additive manufacturing (AM) process; ”);
measuring the physical representation of the component to obtain measurement data (Yang: claim 1, “measure the produced physical representation of the component to obtain measurement data of the physical representation of the component”);
determining a deviation between a geometry of the nominal CAD image and the
measurement data of the physical representation of the component (Yang: claim 1, “determine a deviation between a geometry of the CAD model and the measurement data of the physical representation of the component; calculate a nonlinear scale factor using an iterative simulation process”);
determining a compensation field based on the determined deviation between the geometry
of the nominal CAD image and the measurement data of the physical representation of the
component (Yang: claim 1, “determine a compensation field based on the determined deviation between the geometry of the CAD model and the measurement data of the physical representation of the component and the calculated nonlinear scale factor”);
modifying the nominal CAD image by the compensation field (Yang: claim 1, “modify the nominal CAD model by the determined compensation field;”), where the compensation
field is further created using constrained morphing (Yang: para [0026], “Referring still to FIG. 2, a nonlinear scale factor may be produced at operation 235 based on iterative simulated (i.e., digital or virtual) builds, including simulated part distortions, morphing or changing of the input geometry, and generating further simulated part distortions based on the morphed input geometry”; para [0034], “discrete vectors (e.g., compensated geometry) may be approximated and extrapolated by a continuous analytical function, such as a Basis(B)-spline hyper-patch to calculate the compensation field. Other suitable analytical functions may be used (e.g., discontinuous, polynomial, distance-based function, inverse function) to calculate the compensation field at any point in the space. In one embodiment, a discontinuous analytical function may be used, for example, in an instance where the component has multiple hyper-patch surface to abruptly transition from one surface to another. In some embodiments, the approximation and extrapolation may be performed by a multi-level B-spline morphing
process”), wherein all points of the nominal CAD image are morphed by one of multi-levels, while points in a user-specified region are morphed through additional levels if an acceptable tolerance is not reached and if an acceptable tolerance is reached then not applying additional b-spline morphing or changing levels (Yang: para [0024], “At operation 220, a deviation between a geometry of the CAD model used to produce the physical component and the measurement data of the physical component obtained at operation 215 is determined. The determined deviation is further evaluated at 225 to ascertain whether the initial physical component produced by the AM system is accurately produced, within acceptable tolerances, as determined for an execution of process 200”; para [0034], “the approximation and extrapolation may be performed by a multi-level B-spline morphing process”; Fig. 2, “Within tolerance”, “Yes”, “End”); and
producing a physical part representation of the component from the modified nominal CAD
image (Yang: claim 1, “and produce a physical representation of the component based on the modified nominal CAD mode”).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15, Yang teaches:
The computer-implemented method as described in claim 1, wherein the computer-
implemented method utilizes a morph for the user-specified region that takes into account a
Product and Manufacturing Information (PMI), a single global tolerance, a user specified
tolerance, or a tolerance gathered automatically through data analysis (Yang: para [0024], “At operation 220, a deviation between a geometry of the CAD model used to produce the physical component and the measurement data of the physical component obtained at operation 215 is determined. The determined deviation is further evaluated at 225 to ascertain whether the initial physical component produced by the AM system is accurately produced, within acceptable tolerances, as determined for an execution of process 200”; para [0034], “the approximation and extrapolation may be performed by a multi-level B-spline morphing process”; Fig. 2, “Within tolerance”, “Yes”, “End”).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, Yang teaches:
The computer-implemented method as described in claim 1, wherein the computer-
implemented method utilizes multiple different control point spacing or levels, which can be
different along the X, y, and Z axis, applied in a single morph for the user-specified region, and the control point spacing is modified based on a presence of build lines, measurement data quality, part tolerances (Yang: para [0034], “ Other suitable analytical functions may be used (e.g., discontinuous, polynomial, distance-based function, inverse function) to calculate the compensation field at any point in the space. In one embodiment, a discontinuous analytical function may be used, for example, in an instance where the component has multiple hyper-patch surface to abruptly transition from one surface to another. In some embodiments, the approximation and extrapolation may be performed by a multi-level B-spline morphing
process”; Fig. 2, “Within tolerance”, “Yes”, “End”; para [0024], “The determined deviation is further evaluated at 225 to ascertain whether the initial physical component produced by the AM system is accurately produced, within acceptable tolerances, as determined for an execution of process 200”), wall or feature thickness or finite element mesh spacing.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Yang teaches:
The computer-implemented method as described in claim 1, wherein the computer-
implemented method includes an automatic selection of a best global level to morph the
component (Yang: para [0033], “the measured data of operation 215 and the nominal CAD model geometry from 205 may be super-imposed within a point data pre-processing software (e.g., Imageware®, Polyworks® and Geomagic®) to achieve a best fit/feature based alignment of the measured data and the nominal CAD model prior to calculating the deviation at operation 220”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 11-13, and 18-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 112 and 101 are overcome.
The independent claims will be in condition for allowance when the allowable dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims, in addition to overcoming the 112 and 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record, Yang, teaches a system and a method that can produce geometrically relevant parts from a CAD design model that efficiently and accurately compensates for distortions in additive manufacturing processes. However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claims 5, 12, and 18)
“wherein the computer- implemented method includes applying incremental morphs to the entire component, starting at a low level, where a set of resulting deviation residuals are checked against a set of criteria including: a fixed percentage of points within a distance tolerance, whether all points are within a Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing standard, and if a root mean squared error of all points is under a threshold, which is performed until all criteria are met”,
(claims 6, 13 and 19)
“further comprising a morph constraint to ensure that all the points on the surface are held along a specific plane where rotation of the plane is not allowed”,
(claims 7, 11 and 20)
“wherein a correct morphing level is automatically determined at a local level by assigning tolerance information to each deviation data point, running compensation at level n and calculating residual deviation, removing points that satisfy a local tolerance, and repeating for each data point”
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights