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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-17 have been amended. Claims 2, 12, and 18 were canceled. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-17 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (US20170341795A1 -hereinafter Colson) in view of Tschanz et al. (US20140350898A1 -hereinafter Tschanz).
Regarding Claim 1, Colson teaches a system comprising:
a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) printers to generate printed parts based on second part packings; (see [0008]; Colson: “FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an example method of packaging items using one or more 3-D printers from among multiple available 3-D printers.”)
a processor; and (see [0022]; Colson: “The processor(s) 116”)
a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to implement first and second measurement engines and first and second packing engines, (see [0022]; Colson: “The memory 118 may be configured to store one or more software and/or firmware modules, which are executable by the processor(s) 116 to implement various functions.”)
wherein the second measurement engine is to determine a rate at which the printed parts are output, and (see [0051]; Colson: “size of printing queues of the multiple 3-D printers”)
wherein the second packing engine is to generate the second part packings at a rate corresponding to the rate at which the printed parts are output, such that the second part packings are generated at least as quickly as the printed parts are output. (see [0051]; Colson: “The 3-D printer may be selected based on, for example, the item to be packaged, the type of package to be printed, type of packing material to be printed, the weight of the item to be packaged, size of the package to be printed, size of printing queues of the multiple 3-D printers (e.g., the item may be sent for printing to a printer with the shortest printing queue), a time at which the package is scheduled to be picked up for delivery, how well the package for the item will fit relative to other packages printed by the printer, or other factors.”)
However, Colson does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first measurement engine is to determine a rate at which part orders are received,
wherein the first packing engine is to generate first part packings at a rate corresponding to the rate at which the part orders are received, such that the first part packings are generated at least as quickly as the part orders are received,
Tschanz from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
wherein the first measurement engine is to determine a rate at which part orders are received, (see [0026]; Tschanz: “the computer system may receive or generate a queue of items for printing.”)
wherein the first packing engine is to generate first part packings at a rate corresponding to the rate at which the part orders are received, such that the first part packings are generated at least as quickly as the part orders are received, (see [0051]; Tschanz: “FIG. 6 illustrates some general considerations that are taken into account when determining which items from the queue 500 to print. Specifically, how long an item has been in queue (e.g., how long a guest has been waiting for the item) (Block 600). Whether an item is part of a larger order and the number of print bins that the order may occupy (Block 602). Whether there are other items that may be efficiently printed. For example, whether there may be a small batch (e.g., items 43 percent of full size) which would allow for a quick printing process (Block 604).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Colson to include Tschanz’s features of wherein the first measurement engine is to determine a rate at which part orders are received, wherein the first packing engine is to generate first part packings at a rate corresponding to the rate at which the part orders are received, such that the first part packings are generated at least as quickly as the part orders are received. Doing so would help refine the process and continually improve the created layouts and the configurations used. (Tschanz, [0039])
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Colson further teaches further comprising a first storage to store the part packings (see [0024]; Colson: “The modeling module 122 generates a packaging model 132 describing the geometry layout of the package. The packaging model 132 may be stored in the model store 128.”), wherein the second packing engine is to obtain the part packings from the first storage. (see [0025]; Colson: “Print module 124 may control the 3-D printer 104 to generate packaging for the item according to packaging model 132.”)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above, Tschanz further teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to further implement a sequence engine (see [0021]; Tschanz: “The set may take any suitable form including a queue, a linear queue, a priority queue, a “bag”, and so forth.”), wherein the sequence engine is to generate a list of parts from the part orders (see [0032]; Tschanz: “The efficient packing of the figurines therefore becomes both more difficult due to the randomness of the customer orders, but also relates to an ability to meet the customer's expectations with regard to timeliness.”), where the list is ordered according to a priority of the parts (see [0021]; Tschanz: “the term “layout” may refer to an organization of shapes that fit within the defined space. The term “configuration” may refer to a layout that has been populated by items from the set. The term “set” may generally refer to one or more items provided to the computing system for pairing with a layout to create a configuration. The set may take any suitable form including a queue, a linear queue, a priority queue, a “bag”, and so forth. A bag may be a collection with multiple duplicate items (e.g., identical instances of the same items). The set may be ordered in any suitable manner and, in some embodiments, the set order may be utilized in the scoring. For example, the set may take the form of a priority queue having a tree data structure where a root item is the best scoring item and all other items (i.e., children) may be in any order and have any scoring.”) and the first packing engine is to select the parts to include in the first part packings being generated from the list. (see [0026]; Tschanz: “Items may be selected for printing based at least in part upon the order in which the items were placed in the queue. Additionally, items may be selected for printing based at least in part upon other criteria.”)
The same motivation to combine Colson and Tschanz a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Colson and Tschanz as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, Colson further teaches post-processing, packaging, and shipping the parts that have been 3D printed; and (see [0014]; Colson: “In the course of printing items and/or packages, data is generated or obtained regarding the items and packages being printed. In addition, information about customers ordering or shipping the items, payment information, shipping and destination information, and/or information about recipients of the items and packages may be obtained in order to fulfill a customer order and/or ship the packages to their recipients.”)
measuring, by the processor a rate at which the parts are shipped after having been post-processed and packages, (see [0014]; Colson: “In the course of printing items and/or packages, data is generated or obtained regarding the items and packages being printed. In addition, information about customers ordering or shipping the items, payment information, shipping and destination information, and/or information about recipients of the items and packages may be obtained in order to fulfill a customer order and/or ship the packages to their recipients. By capturing and integrating this data early in the packaging process (when the order is received, as opposed to when the shipping label is created or the item is scanned after being dropped at a shipping location), delivery routes and other capacity variables can be addressed, adapted to, and managed more efficiently, potentially saving time and reducing fuel labor and/or costs… This will result in more efficient deliveries—reducing time, cost, and waste in the shipping portion of the process. In another example, packages can be pre-sorted according to attributes important to the carrier (size, destination, priority status, etc.), saving both time and costs on downstream logistics.”)
wherein the rate at which the parts are output is the rate which parts are shipped. (see [0051]; Colson: “The 3-D printer may be selected based on, for example, the item to be packaged, the type of package to be printed, type of packing material to be printed, the weight of the item to be packaged, size of the package to be printed, size of printing queues of the multiple 3-D printers (e.g., the item may be sent for printing to a printer with the shortest printing queue), a time at which the package is scheduled to be picked up for delivery, how well the package for the item will fit relative to other packages printed by the printer, or other factors.”)
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Colson and Tschanz as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, Tschanz further teaches wherein the processing further comprises: storing the second part packings in a queue in order of a priority of the second part packings. (see [0021]; Tschanz: “the set may take the form of a priority queue having a tree data structure where a root item is the best scoring item and all other items (i.e., children) may be in any order and have any scoring. Additionally, it should be appreciated that the defined space may take the form of a two-dimensional space or a three-dimensional space.” See [0009]; “a system having a computer storage device configured to store a set containing a plurality of irregularly shaped items to be printed and a processor in communication with the computer storage device.”)
The same motivation to combine Colson and Tschanz a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above, Tschanz further teaches wherein the processing further comprises: determining the priority of the second part packings based on priorities of the parts included in the second part packings. (see [0021]; Tschanz: “the term “layout” may refer to an organization of shapes that fit within the defined space. The term “configuration” may refer to a layout that has been populated by items from the set. The term “set” may generally refer to one or more items provided to the computing system for pairing with a layout to create a configuration. The set may take any suitable form including a queue, a linear queue, a priority queue, a “bag”, and so forth. A bag may be a collection with multiple duplicate items (e.g., identical instances of the same items). The set may be ordered in any suitable manner and, in some embodiments, the set order may be utilized in the scoring. For example, the set may take the form of a priority queue having a tree data structure where a root item is the best scoring item and all other items (i.e., children) may be in any order and have any scoring.”)
The same motivation to combine Colson and Tschanz a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, Tschanz teaches further comprising: generating, by the processor, a first packing time that will result in the first part packings being generated at the rate corresponding to the rate at which the part orders are received, where the first packing time is an amount of time spent generating the first part packings. (see [0026]; Tschanz: “The queue may generally be organized chronologically based upon a time of entry into the queue.” See [0027]: “Thus, given an order queue line and a number of configurations, a particular configuration is selected which minimizes the cost function based on queue delays, printing time and total number of figurines in a configuration.”)
The same motivation to combine Colson and Tschanz a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, Colson teaches further comprising: determining, by the processor, a second packing time that will result in the second part packings being generated at the rate corresponding to the rate at which the part orders are output, where the second packing time is an amount of time spent generating the second part packings. (see [0080]; Colson: “the 3-D printer may be selected based on at least one of: queues of packages to be printed by the multiple available 3-D printers; a type of package that is specified to be printed for the item; a time at which the package is scheduled to be picked up for delivery”.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (US20170341795A1 -hereinafter Colson) in view of Tschanz in view of Pekic (US20220203617A1 -hereinafter Pekic).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: further comprising a second storage to store the second part packings such that the second part packings are ordered according to a priority of the first part packings, wherein the plurality of 3 D printers are to select the second part packings from the second storage on which basis the parts included therein are printed as ordered according to the priority of the first part packings.
Pekic from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising a second storage to store the second part packings such that the second part packings are ordered according to a priority of the first part packings (see [0168]; Pekic: “Printer configuration 1070 stores configuration parameters and/or print settings for the one or more printers 1300 in communication with to the cloud server system 1010. A printer job schedule 1080 is a record that may be used to store printing schedules for printing parts”. See [0200]: “In some embodiments, users can order more printing material through software provided by the central print control and management service. When an order has been submitted and processed, the status of the order can be tracked (e.g. whether the order has been shipped, or is in transit, or has arrived).”), wherein the plurality of 3 D printers are to select the second part packings from the second storage on which basis the parts included therein are printed as ordered according to the priority of the first part packings. (see [0118]; Pekic: “An estimated print start time is calculated for each job based on its position in the queue, the length of preceding print jobs, and current availability of compatible printers in the network. An earliest possible print date is also estimated for jobs set to maximum priority.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Colson and Tschanz to include Pekic’s features of a second storage to store the second part packings such that the second part packings are ordered according to a priority of the first part packings, wherein the plurality of 3 D printers are to select the second part packings from the second storage on which basis the parts included therein are printed as ordered according to the priority of the first part packings. Doing so would reduce inefficiencies in the manufacturing of products. (Pekic, [0017])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Tschanz in view of Gustafson et al. (US20100195155A1 -hereinafter Gustafson).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving the part orders;
verifying, by the processor, that design files associated with the part orders are printable; and
measuring, by the processor, a rate at which the part orders are received is the rate at which the part orders are received after verification,
wherein the rate at which the part orders are received is the rate at which the part orders are received after verification.
Gustafson from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
receiving the part orders; (see [0010]; Gustafson: “customer orders are transmitted to a printing system via partners, such as web sites and retail stores.”)
verifying, by the processor, that design files associated with the part orders are printable; and (see [0108]; Gustafson: “Once the order has been imaged, all parts of the order including its XML specification and image content have been verified and stored in data storage 235.”)
measuring, by the processor, a rate at which the part orders are received is the rate at which the part orders are received after verification, (see [0165]; Gustafson: “Value stream cadence, or Vc—refers to the quantity of new work items that may be processed by a value stream during one cycle. It may also be considered as the desired production rate for a cycle.”)
wherein the rate at which the part orders are received is the rate at which the part orders are received after verification. (see [0158]; Gustafson: “In one embodiment, referred to as dynamic cadence, work items are released for processing in accordance with control parameters that ensure that the work items processed at one step of the workflow are constrained to match the rate at which they can be processed at subsequent steps. The rate at which work items are released for processing is referred to as cadence.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Colson and Tschanz to include Gustafson’s features of receiving the part orders; verifying, by the processor, that design files associated with the part orders are printable; and measuring, by the processor, a rate at which the part orders are received is the rate at which the part orders are received after verification, wherein the rate at which the part orders are received is the rate at which the part orders are received after verification. Doing so would efficiently manage and monitor the fulfillment printing workflow. (Gustafson, [0007])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Tschanz in view of Arpino et al. (US20150131125A1 -hereinafter Arpino).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising:
determining parts that are to be re-printed, as re-printed part orders; and
generating, by the processor, new part packings that include the parts that are to be re-printed and a plurality of new parts selected from new part orders, at a rate corresponding to a rate at which the new part orders and the re-printed part orders are received.
Arpino from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
determining parts that are to be re-printed, as re-printed part orders; and (see [0049]; Arpino: “Quality Control may discover that an individual stack of printed items must be reprinted.”)
generating, by the processor, new part packings that include the parts that are to be re-printed and a plurality of new parts selected from new part orders, at a rate corresponding to a rate at which the new part orders and the re-printed part orders are received. (see [0050]; Arpino: “Then, when the gang generator 130 gets an open order, the Order ID associated with the de-associated Fulfillment Item ID will come up eventually to the gang generator as an open order and the print items associated with the de-associated Fulfillment Item ID will be regenerated and placed in one or more new stacks of one or more new gangs and reprinted.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Colson and Tschanz to include Arpino’s features of determining parts that are to be re-printed, as re-printed part orders; and generating, by the processor, new part packings that include the parts that are to be re-printed and a plurality of new parts selected from new part orders, at a rate corresponding to a rate at which the new part orders and the re-printed part orders are received. Doing so would increase throughput capability, allow flexibility, and prevents multiple customer orders from being intermingled. (Arpino, [0008])
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Tschanz in view of Li et al. (NPL: “Production planning in additive manufacturing and 3D printing” -hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further teaches wherein generating the first part packings includes, for each first part packing: selecting a set of parts from a list of parts included in the part orders; removing the selected set of parts from the list of parts; generating the first part packing based on the set of parts; and returning an unused subset of the set of parts that was not included in the first part packing to the list of parts.
Li from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein generating the first part packings includes, for each first part packing: (see Fig. 2)
selecting a set of parts from a list of parts included in the part orders; (see page 159, right column, third paragraph; Li: “There exists a set of parts (i=1, …, in) with different volumes, heights and production areas as determined by the customer’s demands.”)
removing the selected set of parts from the list of parts; (see 163, left column; first paragraph; Li: “Therefore, in the ABF heuristic, P5 and P4 are removed from the temporary job of M2.”)
generating the first part packing based on the set of parts; and (see page 159, right column, third paragraph; Li: “The parts will be allocated to AM machines and then grouped as different sets of jobs (j=1, …, jn) by considering the production cost per unit volume”)
returning an unused subset of the set of parts that was not included in the first part packing to the list of parts. (see Fig. 2; Li teaches the remaining parts of distributed parts (i ϵ I) P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9… read on ‘an unused subset of the set of parts’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Colson and Tschanz to include Li’s features of generating the first part packings includes, for each first part packing: selecting a set of parts from a list of parts included in the part orders; removing the selected set of parts from the list of parts; generating the first part packing based on the set of parts; and returning an unused subset of the set of parts that was not included in the first part packing to the list of parts. Doing so would minimize average production cost per volume of material, while satisfying certain constraints. (Li, page 171, right column second paragraph)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson) in view of Tschanz in view of Zhang et al. (CN 108536401 A -hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Colson and Tschanz teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the first part packings are generated in parallel, and wherein the second part packings are generated in parallel.
Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the first part packings are generated in parallel, and wherein the second part packings are generated in parallel. (see Abstract; Zhang: “The present invention provides multi-task parallel printing packing methods and system based on 3D printing, are related to 3D printing technique field”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Colson and Tschanz to include Zhang’s features of the first part packings are generated in parallel, and wherein the second part packings are generated in parallel. Doing so would improve molding flow time, and then promotes the utilization rate of 3D printer by the way that multiple 3D printing tasks are packaged in a working cycles, and by carrying out rational deployment to parallel print out task, while reducing the average time-consuming of print out task. (Zhang, Abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) of the independent claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sayers (WO2019143352A1) discloses determining 3D print part placement.
Iverson (US10328686B2) discloses estimating a three dimensional (3D) print-time for generating a 3D object relative to one or more 3D model or printer parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights