DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 11/9/2022. 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 .
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 3-6 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 3 recites “the mold machining constraints”. However, claim 3 depends from claim 2 which only provides mold machining constraints as an option in a list. Therefore, “the mold machining constraints” lacks antecedent support. Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Claim 5 recites “the molten metal constraints”. However, claim 5 depends from claim 2, which only provides molten metal constraints as an option in a list. Therefore, “the molten metal constraints” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 6 recites “the mold constraints” which lacks antecedent support. It is assumed to mean “the molding process constraints”. However, claim 6 depends from claim 2, which only provides molding process constraints as an option in a list. Therefore, if “the molding process constraints” were to be recited it would also lack antecedent support.
Claim 6 recites “(3) binding agents selective deposition constraints; mold powder particles provision constraints, (4)…” It is unclear why there is a semi-colon within option 3. It is unclear if both items in option 3 are necessary. For the purposes of examination, option 3 is ignored.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210039312 A1 (“Ulu”) in view of US 20200206810 A1 (“Lavi”).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 19, Ulu teaches:
A method for evaluating a three-dimensional (3D) model of a desired object based on casting system manufacturing constraints (Ulu: para [0022]), the method comprises:
obtaining the 3D model of the desired object (Ulu: para [0023], “in FIG. 1, a 3D input model 100 is shown as-designed, e.g., using a computer-aided design (CAD) program”);
wherein the 3D model comprises vertexes and angular information regarding angular relationships between the vertexes (Ulu: para [0004], “determines a difference between the corrected object model to the three-dimensional object for the angle. For each angle, the next candidate orientation angle may be selected based on the previously evaluated orientations inside an optimization loop. After all angles are processed, a minimum difference is determined based on the differences obtained for each of the build-direction angles. A selected angle
corresponding to the minimum difference is used to build the three-dimensional object model in the additive manufacturing process”);
virtually partitioning the 3D model into slices (Ulu: para [0003], “a three-dimensional object model is divided into a plurality of slices”);
generating a 3D model of a system-compliant object (Ulu: [0028], “2.2 Manufacturability
Analysis and Model Correction”; para [0004], “For each angle, the next candidate orientation angle may be selected based on the previously evaluated orientations inside an optimization loop. After all angles are processed, a minimum difference is determined based on the differences obtained for each of the build-direction angles. A selected angle corresponding to the minimum difference is used to build the three-dimensional object model in the additive manufacturing process.”);
responding to the generating of the 3D model of the system-compliant object (dependent claim 16 states that ‘responding’ can be storing; Ulu: para [0065], “Such instructions may be stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and transferred to the processor for execution as is known in the art”).
Ulu does not teach but Lavi does teach:
a casting system-compliant object (Lavi: para [0010], “receiving a three-dimensional (3D) part model including one or more parts, the part model is divided into a plurality of casted layers.”)
wherein the generating comprises determining for each slice, based on casting system manufacturing constraints and on the 3D model of the desired object, (a) one or more mold regions associated with the slice (Lavi: para [0079], “a 3D mold model 405 and a 3D part model 407 may be stored in storage 157 of controller 153. In some embodiments, 3D mold model 405 and a 3D part model 407 may be divided to a plurality of mold portions and a corresponding plurality of casted layers to be included in a layer build map set 409. For example, for illustrative purposes as including casted layer and the corresponding mold portions build maps 409-1, 409-2, . . . , 409-N, for a 3D printed part that is poured using N layers”), and (b) one or more object regions defined by the one or more mold regions, to be formed by molten metal processing (Lavi: para [0079], “a typical casted layer and mold portion build map 409-C may include casted layer and mold portion data 411, that may contain a layer/portion thickness parameter 413, a number of mold layers 415 within each mold portion, and edge profile data 417. In the discussions of layer fabrication, build map 409-C may be taken as the “current” layer build map during the 3D additive casting process”; para [0009], “depositing, on a build table, a first portion of a mold, such that, the depositing is performed layer by layer; pouring liquid substance into the first portion of the mold to form a first casted layer; solidifying at least a portion of the first casted layer; depositing a second portion of the mold, on top of the first portion of the mold; pouring the liquid substance into the second portion of the mold to form a second casted layer, on top of at least a portion of the first casted layer; and solidifying at least a portion of the second casted layer”; para [0033], “A casting apparatus and method according to embodiments of the invention may include producing casted parts layer by layer, by pouring liquid medium (e.g., a molten metal/alloy,
molten glass, a polymer resin, etc.) into mold portions being deposited themselves layer by layer”); and
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ulu (directed to manufacturability of a CAD model) and Lavi (directed to molten metal casting) and arrived at manufacturability for molten metal casting of a CAD model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “Casting is one of the oldest material-forming methods still used today” and “any change in the 3D model is easily implemented without the need to change any of the printing parameters” (Lavi: paras [0003], [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Ulu does not teach but Lavi does teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the casting system manufacturing constraints comprise at least one out of molding process constraints, mold machining constraints (Lavi: para [0062], “the inner walls of each mold portion may be undergo surface treatment prior to the pouring of an additional casted layer, in step 232. In some embodiments, the surface treatment may include at least one of: machining, grinding, polishing and the like, for example, by surface treatment unit 128. For example, a 90° mill 206, illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may mill the walls of second mold portion 213 (and third mold portion 215) as to attain a more precise and smooth edge. In yet another example, a slop may be provided to the walls of mold portion 313, illustrated in FIG. 4, by an angled end mill 306), or molten metal constraints (Lavi: para [0033], “A casting apparatus and method according to embodiments of the invention may include producing casted parts layer by layer, by pouring liquid medium (e.g., a molten metal/alloy, molten glass, a polymer resin, etc.) into mold
portions being deposited themselves layer by layer”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ulu (directed to manufacturability of a CAD model) and Lavi (directed to molten metal casting) and arrived at manufacturability for molten metal casting of a CAD model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “Casting is one of the oldest material-forming methods still used today” and “any change in the 3D model is easily implemented without the need to change any of the printing parameters” (Lavi: paras [0003], [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Ulu does not teach but Lavi does teach:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the mold machining constraints comprise milling process constraints (Lavi: para [0062], “the inner walls of each mold portion may be undergo surface treatment prior to the pouring of an additional casted layer, in step 232. In some embodiments, the surface treatment may include at least one of: machining, grinding, polishing and the like, for example, by surface treatment unit 128. For example, a 90° mill 206, illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may mill the walls of second mold portion 213 (and third mold portion 215) as to attain a more precise and smooth edge. In yet another example, a slop may be provided to the walls of mold portion 313, illustrated in FIG. 4, by an angled end mill 306).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ulu (directed to manufacturability of a CAD model) and Lavi (directed to milling constraints) and arrived at milling constraints for a CAD model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “Casting is one of the oldest material-forming methods still used today” and “any change in the 3D model is easily implemented without the need to change any of the printing parameters” (Lavi: paras [0003], [0006]).
Regarding claim 4, Ulu does not teach but Lavi does teach:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the milling process constraints comprise one or more constraints from a group consisting of (1) milling device accessibility constraints and (2) milling device size constraints (Lavi: para [0062], “the inner walls of each mold portion may be undergo surface treatment prior to the pouring of an additional casted layer, in step 232. In some embodiments, the surface treatment may include at least one of: machining, grinding, polishing and the like, for example, by surface treatment unit 128. For example, a 90° mill 206, illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may mill the walls of second mold portion 213 (and third mold portion 215) as to attain a more precise and smooth edge. In yet another example, a slop may be provided to the walls of mold portion 313, illustrated in FIG. 4, by an angled end mill 306).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ulu (directed to manufacturability of a CAD model) and Lavi (directed to milling constraints) and arrived at milling constraints for a CAD model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “Casting is one of the oldest material-forming methods still used today” and “any change in the 3D model is easily implemented without the need to change any of the printing parameters” (Lavi: paras [0003], [0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Ulu does not teach but Lavi does teach:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the mold constraints comprise one or more constraints from a group consisting of (1) viscosity of mold material, (2) shape constraints of mold material (Lavi: para [0034], “As used herein, a mold (also known in the art as shell) may include any hollow cavity configured to provide a shape to the liquid material being poured into the mold and allowed to solidify. A mold according to embodiments of the invention may be manufactured by printing/depositing layer by layer of mold material to form different mold portions, as disclosed herein. As used herein, a mold material may be any material suitable for being deposited/printed from a deposition unit and provide a shape for a specific liquid material being poured into the mold, after the mold deposition”), (3) binding agents selective deposition constraints; mold powder particles provision constraints, (4) mold powder removal constraints, (5) mold material deposition constraints.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ulu (directed to manufacturability of a CAD model) and Lavi (directed to shape constraints) and arrived at shape constraints for a CAD model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “Casting is one of the oldest material-forming methods still used today” and “any change in the 3D model is easily implemented without the need to change any of the printing parameters” (Lavi: paras [0003], [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Ulu and Lavi teach:
The method according to claim 1 comprises detecting non-manufacturable 3D model elements that cannot be manufactured under the casting system manufacturing constraints (Ulu: para [0025], “The disclosure generally describes a topology-aware model correction method for manufacturability”; para [0024], “In analyzing and correcting a model for manufacturability”).
Regarding claim 12, Ulu and Lavi teach:
The method according to claim 11,wherein the responding comprises generating an alert regarding the detecting non-manufacturable 3D model elements (Ulu: para [0028], “2.2 Manufacturability Analysis and Model Correction”; para [0025], “The disclosure generally describes a topology-aware model correction method for manufacturability”; para [0024], “In analyzing and correcting a model for manufacturability”; para [0024], “In analyzing and correcting a model for manufacturability”).
Regarding claim 13, Ulu and Lavi teach:
The method according to claim 11 comprises compensating for the non- manufacturable 3D model elements (Ulu: para [0025], “The disclosure generally describes a topology-aware model correction method for manufacturability”; para [0024], “In analyzing and correcting a model for manufacturability”; para [0024], “In analyzing and correcting a model for manufacturability”).
Regarding claim 14, Ulu and Lavi teach:
The method according to claim 11 comprises ignoring the non-manufacturable 3D model elements (Ulu: para [0030], “While the provided corrective actions improve the design significantly, it has been shown that the printability is not guaranteed. Other techniques use medial axis transformation together with techniques from mathematical morphology to construct a printability map and recommend design modifications. However, as the medial axis computation is very sensitive to noise, many unwanted branches may be created, especially on high curvature regions such as corners.”).
Regarding claim 15, Ulu and Lavi teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the responding comprises generating difference information between the 3D model of the desired object and the 3D model of the casting system-compliant object (Ulu: para [0004], “The computation assembles the corrected slices into a corrected object model and determines a difference between the corrected object model to the three-dimensional object for the angle. For each angle, the next candidate orientation angle may be selected based on the previously evaluated orientations inside an optimization loop. After all angles are processed, a minimum difference is determined based on the differences obtained for each of the build-direction angles. A selected angle corresponding to the minimum difference is used to build the three-dimensional object model in the additive manufacturing process.”).
Regarding claim 16, Ulu and Lavi teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the responding comprises storing the 3D model of the casting system-compliant object (Ulu: para [0065], “Such instructions may be stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and transferred to the processor for execution as is known in the art”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210039312 A1 (“Ulu”) in view of US 20200206810 A1 (“Lavi”), further in view US 20050288807 A1 (“Tooman”).
Regarding claim 5, Ulu and Lavi do not teach but
The method according to claim 2, wherein the molten metal constraints comprise one or more constraints from a group consisting of (1) a dimension of a drop of molten metal (Tooman: para [0034], “drops (size, length,…)” ), (2) an area of a spread of a drop of the molten metal, (3) a dimension of a stream of molten metal, and (4) feasible trajectories of a stream of molten metal.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ulu and Lavi(directed to manufacturability of a CAD model) and Tooman (directed to molten metal constraints) and arrived at molten metal constraints for a CAD model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “a semi-automated computer-implemented method and system for designing manifold assemblies, which shortens the conventional design cycle” (Tooman: para [0008]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210039312 A1 (“Ulu”) in view of US 20200206810 A1 (“Lavi”), in view of US 20170326623 A1 (“Wowczuk”).
Regarding claim 7, Ulu and Lavi do not teach but Wowczuk does teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the casting system manufacturing constraints comprise at least one out of (1) molding process voxel constraints, (2) mold voxel machining constraints, and (3) molten metal voxel constraints (Wowczuk: para [0011], “casting the memorialization product by adding molten metal to the created mold”; para [0013], “receive product design information; convert polygonal information contained in the product design information to voxel information; determine an acceptable resolution for the 3D model; and generate the 3D model. In some examples, determining the acceptable resolution for the 3D model can be based upon voxel sizes resulting from the conversion of polygonal information to voxel information.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ulu and Lavi (directed to manufacturability of a CAD model) and Wowczuk (directed to voxel constraints) and arrived at manufacturability of a CAD model with voxel constraints. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “ Molds produced via additive manufacturing according to the methods disclosed herein can be made using specifications and parameters that optimize cycle time and product quality over a typical casting process involving a pattern” (Wowczuk: para [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Ulu and Lavi do not teach but Wowczuk does teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the casting system manufacturing constraints comprises voxel size and orientation constraints (Wowczuk: para [0006], “determining the acceptable resolution for the 3D model is based upon voxel sizes resulting from the conversion of polygonal information to voxel information”; para [0031], “the digital input may be manipulated/modified to make a mold design by optimizing…orientation, feature complexity, or the like”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ulu and Lavi (directed to manufacturability of a CAD model) and Wowczuk (directed to voxel and orientation constraints) and arrived at manufacturability of a CAD model with voxel and orientation constraints. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “ Molds produced via additive manufacturing according to the methods disclosed herein can be made using specifications and parameters that optimize cycle time and product quality over a typical casting process involving a pattern” (Wowczuk: para [0004]).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 18 and 20 contain allowable subject matter.
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 rejections.
Tooman, Ulu, Lavi, and Wowczuk teach a method for evaluating a 3D model based on casting system manufacturing constraints. However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claim 9)
“wherein the determining comprises finding that a facet that is located at a certain location and is formed by a set of vertexes of the 3D model does not comply with an orientation constraint of voxel located at a corresponding certain location”,
(claim 10)
“wherein the finding of the facet is followed by evaluating whether the facet can be manufactured by the casting system by (a) dispensing mold to the voxel that is located at the corresponding certain location, (b) removing excess material from the voxel to provide a partial voxel, and (c) providing molten metal to a gap formed by the removing of the excess material”,
(claim 18)
“wherein the determining comprises finding that a facet that is located at a certain location and is formed by a set of vertexes of the 3D model does not comply with an orientation constraint of voxel located at a corresponding certain location, the finding is followed by evaluating whether the facet can be manufactured by the casting system by (a) dispensing mold to the voxel that is located at the corresponding certain location, (b) removing excess material from the voxel to provide a partial voxel, and (c) providing molten metal to a gap formed by the removing of the excess material”,
(claim 20)
“the determining comprises finding that a facet that is located at a certain location and is formed by a set of vertexes of the 3D model does not comply with an orientation constraint of voxel located at a corresponding certain location, the finding is followed by evaluating whether the facet can be manufactured by the casting system by (a) dispensing mold to the voxel that is located at the corresponding certain location, (b) removing excess material from the voxel to provide a partial voxel, and (c) providing molten metal to a gap formed by the removing of the excess material”,
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.
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