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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 12/11/2025 responsive to the Office Action filed 09/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 have been amended. Claims 19 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 11-13, 15, 16 and 18 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 16 and 18 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 has been amended to address the informality, thus the objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment filed 12/11/2025 in pages 8-11, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered. Due to the amendments, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cruz-Uribe et al. (US 2005/0015171) in view of Leibig et al. (US 2019/0168446) and Fulop et al. (US 2018/0162013).
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment filed 12/11/2025 in pages 12-14, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “This assertion does not align with the teachings of the prior art and again engages in impermissible hindsight using the Applicant's own specification. In particular, the assertion that "one would have found it obvious to vary a volume mix ration of the mixture of the two different materials over the first tool path in order to obtain varied physical properties in the 3D object," is not supported by the capabilities of the prior art and goes expressly against Leibig's clear statement that it required "two operations" in order to dispense its two static thermosets.” (page 14)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Leibig teaches that a proportion of flow from isocyanate sources based on isocyanate attributes may be used to control part flexibility, color, optical refractive index, etc. (Pa [0004]) and a proportion of flow from polyol sources based on polyol attributes may be used to control part flexibility, color, optical refractive index, etc. (Pa [0005]), and in the example further teaches dispensing accurate amounts of several reactive components to create 3D objects with a range of physical properties (Pa [0084]). Thus, one would have found it obvious to vary a volume mix ration of the mixture of the two different materials over the first tool path in order to obtain varied physical properties in the 3D object. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz-Uribe et al. (US 2005/0015171- of record) in view of Fulop et al. (US 2018/0162013) and Leibig et al. (US 2019/0168446- of record).
With respect to claim 1, Cruz-Uribe teaches that a computer system for part production using additive infill design (Figs. 2-3 and 11), comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors configure the computer system (“a computing device (110)”, Pa [0027]-[0028]) to perform at least the following (Fig. 2):
receive a computer-aided design (CAD) file that describes physical dimensions of a target object (“The computing device (110) may be any device configured to translate coordinates representing a segment of a desired three-dimensional object”, Pa [0028]; the coordinates would include the physical dimensions of the target object.);
identify a physical boundary portion of the target object within the CAD file (“The computing device (110) may be any device configured to translate coordinates representing a segment of a desired three-dimensional object and its necessary structural support”, Pa [0028]), wherein the physical boundary portion (“the boundary (109)”) comprises a portion of the target object that encloses infill material (“object build material (107)”) (Pa [0031]-[0032] and Fig. 2);
determine a target flow rate to infill the physical boundary portion with the infill material (“dispense object build material (107) and non-boundary structural material according to low precision dispensing methods…The level of precision exhibited by the material dispensers (105) may depend on a number of factors including…material drop rate used by the material dispensers (105), frequency, …carriage speed”, Pa [0029]);
generate a first tool path to flow infill material into the physical boundary portion (“The computing device (110) may be any device configured to translate coordinates representing a segment of a desired three-dimensional object and its necessary structural support into suitable servo commands for the servo mechanisms (115).”, Pa [0028]; “The material dispensers may be configured to perform selective boundary deposition when forming the boundary (109) of a containment structure (113) according to high precision methods, and dispense object build material (107) and non-boundary structural material according to low precision dispensing methods.”, Pa [0029]), wherein the infill material comprises a coreactive material (“The contained liquid build material (107; FIG. 7B) may be solidified using …a chemical cure activated by chemical agents present in the build material when deposited”, Pa [0044]); and
send instructions to a dispenser that cause the dispenser to implement the first tool path while flowing the infill material into the physical boundary portion (“The computing device (110) may be any device configured to translate coordinates representing a segment of a desired three-dimensional object and its necessary structural support into suitable servo commands for the servo mechanisms (115).”, Pa [0028]);
generate a second tool path to additively manufacture the physical boundary portion (“The computing device (110) may be any device configured to translate coordinates representing a segment of a desired three-dimensional object and its necessary structural support into suitable servo commands for the servo mechanisms (115).”, Pa [0028]); and
send instructions to the computer system in communication with another dispenser that cause the other dispenser to implement the second tool path while flowing boundary material to form the physical boundary portion (“The material dispensers (105) illustrated in FIG. 2 may be …multiple material dispensers of the same or different types (at least one dispenser for dispensing build material, and another for dispensing support material)”, “The computing device (110) may be any device configured to translate coordinates representing a segment of a desired three-dimensional object and its necessary structural support into suitable servo commands for the servo mechanisms (115).”, Pa [0028]), wherein the second tool path and the first tool path are implemented simultaneously (“the solid freeform fabrication method may begin by simultaneously forming the containment structure (step 1100) and dispensing the object build material (step 1110).”, Pa [0055]).
Cruz-Uribe is silent to detecting, with a computer vision system, a pre-existing physical boundary portion, wherein the computer vision system utilizes the CAD file to identify the pre-existing physical boundary portion. However, Cruz-Uribe further teaches a feedback device (111) configured to monitor and control the dispensing of the volume of object build material (107) and a radiation applicator (130) configured to apply radiation to the dispensed material after the deposition of each segment, the feedback device (111) may include, but is in no way limited to, an optical sensor, a flow meter, or other device that may be used to monitor and control the volume of object build material (107) dispensed by the material dispenser (105) operating as either a high precision or a low precision dispenser (Pa [0033]), and also teaches that the solid freeform fabrication method may begin by simultaneously forming the containment structure (step 1100) and dispensing the object build material (step 1110), the present method allows the continuous object forming boundary (109; FIG. 8) of the containment structure (113) to be formed with a material dispenser operating as a high precision dispenser while the build material is dispensed by a material dispenser operating as a low precision dispenser (Pa [0055]).
Thus, one would have found it obvious to additionally allow the optical sensor to monitor and control the volume of the continuous object forming boundary material dispensed by the material dispenser operating as a high precision dispenser in order to precisely control the formation of the continuous object forming boundary according to the CAD file.
Cruz-Uribe is still silent to a computer vision system.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, Fulop teaches that the printer 100 may include a camera and computer vision system that identifies errors, variations, or the like that occur in each layer of the object 112, and similarly, tomography or other imaging techniques may be used to detect and measure layer-to-layer interfaces, aggregate part dimensions, diagnostic information (defects, voids, and the like) and so forth (Pa [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cruz-Uribe with the teachings of Fulop and substitute a camera and computer vision system for the optical sensor in order to identify errors, variations, or the like that occur in each layer of the object, and to detect and measure layer-to-layer interfaces, aggregate part dimensions, diagnostic information (defects, voids, and the like) and so forth.
Cruz-Uribe teaches that the infill material comprises a mixture of two different materials (“a chemical cure activated by chemical agents present in the build material when deposited”, Pa [0044]), but does not explicitly teach that a volume mix ratio of the mixture of the two different materials is dynamically varied as a gradient during movement of a dispenser over the first tool path, such that the mixture dispensed at different spatial positions along the first tool path comprises different respective mix ratios.
In the same field of endeavor, a three-dimensional (3D) object production system, Leibig teaches a proportion of flow from isocyanate sources based on isocyanate attributes may be used to control part flexibility, color, optical refractive index, etc. (Pa [0004]) and a proportion of flow from polyol sources based on polyol attributes may be used to control part flexibility, color, optical refractive index, etc. (Pa [0005]), and in the example further teaches dispensing accurate amounts of several reactive components to create 3D objects with a range of physical properties (Pa [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cruz-Uribe with the teachings of Leibig and dispense two reactive components to flow infill material (“object build material”) in order to create a 3D object with a desired physical property. Even though the example 1A of Leibig does not explicitly teach that a volume mix ration of the mixture of the two different materials is varied over the first tool path, since Leibig further teaches that a proportion of flow from isocyanate sources based on isocyanate attributes may be used to control part flexibility, color, optical refractive index, etc. (Pa [0004]) and a proportion of flow from polyol sources based on polyol attributes may be used to control part flexibility, color, optical refractive index, etc. (Pa [0005]), one would have found it obvious to vary a volume mix ration of the mixture of the two different materials over the first tool path in order to obtain varied physical properties in the 3D object.
With respect to claim 2, Cruz-Uribe as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the generation of the first tool path is based, at least in part, upon the target flow rate (“The level of precision exhibited by the material dispensers (105) may depend on a number of factors including…material drop rate used by the material dispensers (105), frequency, …carriage speed”, Pa [0029]).
With respect to claim 5, Cruz-Uribe as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the boundary material comprises a coreactive material as well (“the containment material may solidify through … a rapid chemical curing process activated by chemical agents present in the containment material.”, Pa [0038]), but does not explicitly teach that the infill material and the boundary material comprise the same composition. However, one would have found it obvious to select the same composition of materials for the infill material and the boundary material for the purpose of uniform property of the 3D product.
With respect to claim 6, Cruz-Uribe as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the boundary material comprises a thermoplastic (“The containment structure (113; FIG. 2) may be formed out of a material deposited by a material dispenser including, but in no way limited to, melted wax, a polymer, … the containment material may solidify through cooling”, Pa [0038]).
With respect to claim 8, Cruz-Uribe as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the level of precision exhibited by the material dispensers (105) may depend on a number of factors including, but in no way limited to, distance between the material dispensers (105) and a target area, material drop rate used by the material dispensers (105), frequency, firing method incorporated, quality of feedback mechanism, carriage speed, resolution of data set, etc (Pa [0029]), and further teaches that if the bulk object build material (107) has a somewhat low viscosity and/or high surface tension, it may take some time to spread across and fill the containment moat (500; FIG. 8) defined by the containment structure (113; FIG. 8), and according to this exemplary embodiment, the containment structure (113; FIG. 8) and the object build material (107; FIG. 9) may be dispensed simultaneously, as long as the containment structure is sufficiently solidified by the time the object build material (107) engages it (Pa [0055]). Thus, one would have found it obvious to determine the target flow rate of the infill material based on the viscosity of the infill material in order to decide the level of precision for dispensing the infill material.
With respect to claim 10, Cruz-Uribe as applied to claim 1 above further teaches a three-dimensional printer (Figs. 2-3), the three-dimensional printer comprising the dispenser (“The material dispensers (105)”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz-Uribe et al. (US 2005/0015171- of record) in view of Fulop et al. (US 2018/0162013) and Leibig et al. (US 2019/0168446- of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prawel (US 2019/0328517- of record).
With respect to claim 3, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the generation of the first tool path comprises a portion where the dispenser is allowed to coast and continue to extrude remaining material that is within the dispenser.
In the same field of endeavor, a system for manufacturing using a 3D printer, Prawel teaches that the controller 114 causes the nozzle 120 to selectively deposit semi-molten filament material onto the bed 122 at coordinate positions specified by the print instructions, and the controller 114 causes the nozzle 120 to coast at the end of the deposition of a layer to minimize variance in a thickness of the layers as the nozzle 120 changes directions, stated differently, the coasting of the nozzle 120 as the nozzle 120 transitions from one deposition pass to another ceases extrusion of the filament material throughout the change of direction by the nozzle 120, thereby dissipating any built-up back pressure before a consistent velocity of the nozzle 120 resumes (Pa [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Prawel and allow the extrusion nozzle to coast at the end of the deposition of a layer in order to minimize variance in a thickness of the layers as the extrusion nozzle changes directions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742