DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
"access engine" and "heat-aware toolpath engine" in claims 8 and 11-13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18001358. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of Co-pending Application No. 18001358 teach the claim limitations, as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
Co-Pending Application No 18001358
1. A method comprising: by a computing system:
1. A method comprising: by a computing system:
accessing a slice of a 3-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) object, wherein the 3D CAD object represents a physical part and wherein the slice represents a physical layer for 3D printing of the physical part;
accessing an original layer toolpath for slice of a 3D CAD object, wherein the 3D CAD object represents a physical part, wherein the slice represents a physical layer for 3D printing of the physical part,
generating a layer toolpath to control the 3D printing of the physical layer, including by:
and wherein the original layer toolpath controls the 3D printing of the physical layer and comprises a 3D print order for multiple toolpath segments for the original layer toolpath;
partitioning the slice into zones; and determining a zone order, based on a heat-aware criterion, for the layer toolpath to traverse for the 3D printing of the physical layer; and
reordering the multiple toolpath segments into a modified layer toolpath, wherein the modified layer toolpath has a different 3D print order from the original layer toolpath and has a heat criticality measure with a lesser heat impact on the physical part than the heat criticality measure for the original layer toolpath;and
providing the layer toolpath to support the 3D printing of the physical part.
providing the modified layer toolpath to support the 3D printing of the physical part.
Claim 1 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 1 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18001358. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 8 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Regarding instant claim 8, claim 8 of Co-pending Application No. 18001358 teach the claim limitations.
Claim 8 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 8 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Co-pending Application No. 18001358. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 15 is anticipated by Co-pending Application claim.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 15 of Co-pending Application No. 18001358 teach the claim limitations.
Claim 15 is generic to the species of invention covered by claim 15 of the Co-pending Application. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the Co-pending Application invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 8 recites:
A system comprising:
an access engine configured to access a slice of a 3-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) object, wherein the 3D CAD object represents a physical part and wherein the slice represents a physical layer for 3D printing of the physical part;
a heat-aware toolpath engine configured to:
generate a layer toolpath to control the 3D printing of the physical layer, including by:
partitioning the slice into zones; and
determining a zone order, based on a heat-aware criterion, for the layer toolpath to traverse for the 3D printing of the physical layer; and
provide the layer toolpath to support the 3D printing of the physical part.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 8 recites the limitations of “generate a layer toolpath to control the 3D printing of the physical layer, including by: partitioning the slice into zones; and determining a zone order, based on a heat-aware criterion, for the layer toolpath to traverse for the 3D printing of the physical layer”. The recited “generate …, partitioning …, and determining …” steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, generate the layer tool path by partitioning the slice into zones and determining a zone order can be done in the mind or with pen and paper. The slice can be divided into grids in the mind or using pen and paper, and the zone order can be determined in the mind or using pen and paper to mark next grid separated by a grid from the current grid. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “access a slice of a 3-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) object, wherein the 3D CAD object represents a physical part and wherein the slice represents a physical layer for 3D printing of the physical part”, these additional limitations represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, and are recited at a high level of generality (For example, see MPEP 2106.05(g), which notes that mere data gathering, outputting and storing can be seen as insignificant extra-solution activity). These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recited 2) “system”, “access engine" and "heat-aware toolpath engine” (“access engine" and "heat-aware toolpath engine” invoking 35 USC 112(f) therefore are interpreted by corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, which is merely a module implemented using one or more processors) are additional elements which are to implement the system. But the “system”, “access engine" and "heat-aware toolpath engine” are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is “processor") that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recited 3) “provide the layer toolpath to support the 3D printing of the physical part” is additional limitation that is recited at high level of generality (no details what so ever are provided other than causing to act), it is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or mere field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2016.05(h)) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitation and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “access a slice of a 3-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) object, wherein the 3D CAD object represents a physical part and wherein the slice represents a physical layer for 3D printing of the physical part”;
2) “system”, “access engine" and "heat-aware toolpath engine”;
3) “provide the layer toolpath to support the 3D printing of the physical part”.
Regarding 1), as explained previously, are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. As indicated in MPEP 2016.05(d) II, receiving, transmitting and storing data are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Regarding 2) “system”, “access engine" and "heat-aware toolpath engine” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding 3) “provide the layer toolpath to support the 3D printing of the physical part” is additional limitation that is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception or mere field of use and technological environment and does not add an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 8, claim 1 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The additional elements "computer-system'' are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 8, claim 1 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The additional elements " non-transitory machine-readable medium'' are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 9 depend on claims 1 and 8, respectively, and recite additional limitation of “the heat-aware criterion specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is a maximum distance from a current zone” that merely specifies some details of the “determining” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claims 2 and 9 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claims 2 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 10 and 16 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and recite additional limitation of “the heat-aware criterion specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is a predetermined distance from a current zone” that merely specifies some details of the “determining” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claims 3, 10 and 16 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claims 3, 10 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 11 and 17 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and recite additional limitation of “the heat-aware criterion specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is adjacent to a current zone and wherein generating the layer toolpath further comprises reversing a starting point and ending point of the toolpath for the 3D printing of the subsequent zone” that merely specifies some details of the “determining” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claims 4, 11 and 17 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claims 4, 11 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and recite additional limitation of “applying a different heat-aware criterion for generating a layer toolpath of a different slice of the 3D CAD object” that merely specifies some details of the “determining” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claims 5, 12 and 18 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claims 5, 12 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and recite additional limitation of “partitioning the slice into zones that are greater in area than zones of a different slice that represents another physical layer that is to be manufactured prior to the physical layer in the 3D printing of the physical part” that merely specifies some details of the “partitioning” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claims 6, 13 and 19 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claims 6, 13 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 7, 13 and 19 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and recite additional limitation of “the heat-aware criterion specifies determination of a starting zone in the zone order that is at least a threshold distance from an ending zone of a zone order determined for a different slice, wherein the different slice represents another physical layer that is to be manufactured prior to the physical layer in the 3D printing of the physical part” that merely specifies some details of the “determining” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claims 7, 13 and 19 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claims 7, 13 and 19 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ploshikhin US 20210129226 A1 in view of Pieper US 20220075346 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Ploshikhin teaches a system comprising:
a heat-aware toolpath engine ([0073] computer) configured to:
generate a layer toolpath to control the 3D printing of the physical layer, including by: partitioning the slice into zones; and determining a zone order, based on a heat-aware criterion, for the layer toolpath to traverse for the 3D printing of the physical layer ([0012] division of a component layer into segments i.e. “partitioning the layer into zones” and determining the time sequence of the creation of individual segments with scanning vectors based on local heat dissipating capability i.e. “determining a zone order, based on a heat-aware criterion, for the layer toolpath to traverse for the 3D printing of the physical layer”); and
provide the layer toolpath to support the 3D printing of the physical part ([0074] the component layers are additively manufactured according to the scanning strategy).
Ploshikhin does not explicitly teach the layer is sliced by an access engine configured to access a slice of a 3-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) object, wherein the 3D CAD object represents a physical part and wherein the slice represents a physical layer for 3D printing of the physical part.
Pieper explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the layer is sliced by an access engine configured to access a slice of a 3-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) object, wherein the 3D CAD object represents a physical part and wherein the slice represents a physical layer for 3D printing of the physical part (Figs. 1, 2A&2B [0102] [0104] [0109] [0110] [0142] the slice based on CAD is selected);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploshikhin to incorporate the teachings of Pieper, because they all directed to 3D printing control, to make the system wherein the layer is sliced by an access engine configured to access a slice of a 3-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) object, wherein the 3D CAD object represents a physical part and wherein the slice represents a physical layer for 3D printing of the physical part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to set the printing order of the segments, as Pieper teaches in [0109].
Regarding claim 1, it is directed to a method of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claim 8. Since Ploshikhin and Pieper teach the claimed system, they teach the method steps for implementing the system.
Regarding claim 15, it is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium with program of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claim 8. Since Ploshikhin and Pieper teach the claimed system, they teach the program for implementing the system.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Ploshikhin further teaches the heat-aware criterion specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is a maximum distance from a current zone ([0040] the segment at a maximum distance to be the next segment).
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ploshikhin in view of Pieper as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15 above, further in view of LOWER US 20240033820 A1.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, neither Ploshikhin nor Pieper explicitly teaches the heat-aware criterion specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is a predetermined distance from a current zone.
LOWER explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the heat-aware criterion specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is a predetermined distance from a current zone ([0054] minimum distance between two successively irradiated points).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploshikhin and Pieper to incorporate the teachings of LOWER, because they all directed to 3D printing control, to make the method/system/ non-transitory machine-readable medium wherein specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is a predetermined distance from a current zone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to avoid two heated zones interfering each other, as LOWER teaches in [0054].
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ploshikhin in view of Pieper as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15 above, further in view of Mark US 20200114422 A1.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, neither Ploshikhin nor Pieper explicitly teaches specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is adjacent to a current zone and wherein the heat- aware toolpath engine is configured to generate the layer toolpath further by reversing a starting point and ending point of the toolpath for the 3D printing of the subsequent zone.
Mark explicitly teaches in an analogous art that specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is adjacent to a current zone and wherein the heat- aware toolpath engine is configured to generate the layer toolpath further by reversing a starting point and ending point of the toolpath for the 3D printing of the subsequent zone (Fig. 36A [0208] the next zone of 371 is adjacent zone 372, the starting point and end of the toolpath is reversed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploshikhin and Pieper to incorporate the teachings of Mark, because they all directed to 3D printing control, to make the method/system/ non-transitory machine-readable medium wherein specifies selection of a subsequent zone in the zone order that is adjacent to a current zone and wherein the heat- aware toolpath engine is configured to generate the layer toolpath further by reversing a starting point and ending point of the toolpath for the 3D printing of the subsequent zone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that the direction of residual stress are opposite in the adjacent paths, as Mark teaches in [0211].
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, neither Ploshikhin nor Pieper explicitly teaches apply a different heat-aware criterion for generating the layer toolpath of a different slice of the 3D CAD object.
Mark explicitly teaches in an analogous art that apply a different heat-aware criterion for generating the layer toolpath of a different slice of the 3D CAD object (Fig. 36B [0209] the toolpath followed a different heat-aware criterion for adjacent layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploshikhin and Pieper to incorporate the teachings of Mark, because they all directed to 3D printing control, to make the method/system/ non-transitory machine-readable medium wherein apply a different heat-aware criterion for generating the layer toolpath of a different slice of the 3D CAD object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that the directions of residual stress are opposite in the adjacent layers, as Mark teaches in [0211].
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ploshikhin in view of Pieper as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15 above, further in view of HERZOG EP 1441897 B1.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, neither Ploshikhin nor Pieper explicitly teaches partition the slice into zones that are greater in area than zones of a different slice that represents another physical layer that is to be manufactured prior to the physical layer in the 3D printing of the physical part.
HERZOG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that partition the slice into zones that are greater in area than zones of a different slice that represents another physical layer that is to be manufactured prior to the physical layer in the 3D printing of the physical part (Fig. 5 page 3 paragraph 6, the zones of layers 8 and 8’ have different sizes, one will be greater than the other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploshikhin and Pieper to incorporate the teachings of HERZOG, because they all directed to 3D printing control, to make the method/system/ non-transitory machine-readable medium wherein partition the slice into zones that are greater in area than zones of a different slice that represents another physical layer that is to be manufactured prior to the physical layer in the 3D printing of the physical part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to fit different region of the workpiece, as HERZOG teaches in page 2 paragraph 6.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, neither Ploshikhin nor Pieper explicitly teaches specifies determination of a starting zone in the zone order that is at least a threshold distance from an ending zone of a zone order determined for a different slice, wherein the different slice represents another physical layer that is to be manufactured prior to the physical layer in the 3D printing of the physical part.
HERZOG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that specifies determination of a starting zone in the zone order that is at least a threshold distance from an ending zone of a zone order determined for a different slice, wherein the different slice represents another physical layer that is to be manufactured prior to the physical layer in the 3D printing of the physical part (Fig. 5 page 3 paragraph 6, the zones of layers 8 and 8’, that the starting zone of layer 8 is at least offset distance i.e. “a threshold distance away” from the ending zone of layer 8’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploshikhin and Pieper to incorporate the teachings of HERZOG, because they all directed to 3D printing control, to make the method/system/ non-transitory machine-readable medium wherein specifies determination of a starting zone in the zone order that is at least a threshold distance from an ending zone of a zone order determined for a different slice, wherein the different slice represents another physical layer that is to be manufactured prior to the physical layer in the 3D printing of the physical part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to compensate the residual stresses, as HERZOG teaches in page 3 paragraph 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HERZOG WO 2015062564 A1 teaches determining starting point based on previous layer thermal profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Thomas Lee can be reached on (571)272-3667. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/THOMAS C LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115