DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Amendment dated 24 October 2025. Claims 1 and 13 are amended. Claims 18-20 have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-20 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Examiner’s Suggestion
Examiner suggests amending the independent claim to include the steps “determining that the second value is smaller than the first value; in response to determining that the second value is smaller than the first value: performing a repair procedure on the one or more failing nozzle heads, and automatically restarting the print job after the one or more failing nozzle heads are repaired”. Examiner believes an amendment in this manner would facilitate the advancement of prosecution. Examiner is also available for an interview at applicant’s convenience.
Response to Amendment
Based on applicant’s amendment and response, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-5, 7, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontaine (US 2016/0067920 A1) in view of Sultan et al. (US 2022/0072799 A1), further in view of Oligschlaeger et al. (US 2020/0326683 A1) and further in view of Kuster (US 2020/0198234 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Fontaine teaches a method or controlling an extrusion system for additive manufacturing, the extrusion system being configured to perform at least one print job in which a three-dimensional structure is manufactured in parallel, wherein the extrusion system includes a controller and an extrusion unit having a plurality of nozzle heads by means of which filaments of build material are deposited in a predetermined interconnected arrangement for concurrently forming individual three-dimensional structures in parallel, wherein each nozzle head includes one or more nozzle outlets through which the build material is extruded [(e.g. see Fontaine paragraph 0008, 0104 and Figs. 1 and 19) ”Apparatus and associated methods relate to a configurable X-carriage for a 3D printer, the X-carriage having a guiding rod and an X-drive belts, each adapted to receive one or more print heads disposed along a longitudinal length of the X-carriage. In an illustrative embodiment, the longitudinal length may define an X-domain of operation for depositing material to create 3D products. The X-domain may be divided among one or more print heads removeably coupled along the longitudinal length. In some embodiments, a plurality of removeably coupled print heads may be operated in a substantially identical fashion to create identical copies of a 3D products. In an exemplary embodiment, a plurality of removeably coupled print heads may be operated in a cooperative fashion to create a single 3D product from materially applied from the plurality of removeably coupled print heads. The configurable X-axis may advantageously optimize the use of 3D print resource … FIG. 19 depicts an exemplary multiple head gantry system. In the depicted embodiment, multiple X-axis gantries are synchronously displaced in the y-axis direction by the y-axis drive system. By way of example and not limitation, a printer may include 3 gantries extending along the x-axis in some embodiments. Each gantry may support any suitably spaced apart number (e.g., 4) of deposition means operable for simultaneous operation with synchronous x and y-axis position profiles”].
Fontaine does not specifically teach wherein the method includes monitoring an operation of each of the plurality of nozzle heads during the print job in order to detect one or more operational failure events linked to one or more failing nozzle heads, wherein, in case one or more operational failure events are detected, the controller is configured to perform the steps of: determining a first value indicative of an [average] print time for finishing a number of three-dimensional structures when the print job is continued using one or more non-failing nozzle heads of the plurality of nozzle heads which are still operational or determining a second value indicative of an [average] print time for finishing the number of three-dimensional structures when the print job is promptly interrupted and a new print job is initiated with one or more failing nozzle heads of the plurality of nozzle heads being repaired. However, in the same field of invention, Sultan teaches:
wherein the method includes monitoring an operation of each of the plurality of nozzle heads during the print job in order to detect one or more operational failure events linked to one or more failing nozzle heads, wherein, in case one or more operational failure events are detected, the controller is configured to perform the steps of: [(e.g. see Sultan paragraphs 0016, 0040) ”One aspect of the present invention provides a 3D printing system including a controller and printing heads comprising one or more nozzle arrays, and being configured to form a 3D object by depositing a building material, layer by layer, and wherein the controller is configured to activate each of the printing heads to dispense a building material at least once within a specified period of time during said printing … Nozzle clogging or blocking necessitates halting jobs during printing for head maintenance and/or calibration”].
determining a first value indicative of an [average] print time for finishing a number of three-dimensional structures when the print job is continued using one or more non-failing nozzle heads of the plurality of nozzle heads which are still operational [(e.g. see Sultan paragraph 0017) ”In some embodiments, the controller is configured to activate all of the nozzles of a printing head, at least part of the nozzles of a printing head, or a nozzle array of a printing head. In some embodiments, the specified period of time is the time necessary for a printing block comprising the printing heads to perform a full scan or pass over the building tray, the time necessary to build one layer of said 3D object, the time necessary to build a specific number of layers of the 3D object (e.g. a specific number of layers being equal or inferior to the number of printing heads or the number of nozzles arrays), the time necessary to build said 3D object, less than 5 minutes, less than 1 minute and less than 30 seconds”].
determining a second value indicative of an [average] print time for finishing the number of three-dimensional structures when the print job is promptly interrupted and a new print job is initiated with one or more failing nozzle heads of the plurality of nozzle heads being repaired [(e.g. see Sultan paragraphs 0039, 0040) ”3D object being printed may leave some printing head nozzles or arrays of nozzles inactive (e.g., not depositing material) for relatively long periods during the course of printing, while other nozzles or arrays of nozzles continue to deposit materials required for printing during the same time frame. When inkjet printing heads, e.g., inkjet nozzles are inactive e.g., idle for a period of time during operation of the system, e.g., during a printing job, the nozzles are at risk of becoming clogged, e.g., due to UV light reflecting back to the nozzle arrays from the printing surface, or because of dirt accumulation in and/or around idle nozzle apertures … Nozzle clogging or blocking necessitates halting jobs during printing for head maintenance and/or calibration, when previously unused heads need to be re-operated, e.g., printing head purging and/or wiping sequences, and an increase in the frequency of such maintenance sequences (e.g., every 15 min., instead of every 30 min. for frequently operating heads). In general, repeated clogging results in a reduction of printing head lifetime and increased expenditure on system maintenance, e.g. due to accumulated costs of material purges via the nozzles and/or printing head replacement”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Fontaine and Sultan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the method includes monitoring an operation of each of the plurality of nozzle heads during the print job in order to detect one or more operational failure events linked to one or more failing nozzle heads, wherein, in case one or more operational failure events are detected, the controller is configured to perform the steps of: determining a first value indicative of an [average] print time for finishing a number of three-dimensional structures when the print job is continued using one or more non-failing nozzle heads of the plurality of nozzle heads which are still operational and determining a second value indicative of an [average] print time for finishing the number of three-dimensional structures when the print job is promptly interrupted and a new print job is initiated with one or more failing nozzle heads of the plurality of nozzle heads being repaired, as taught by Sultan, to the teachings of Fontaine because it reduces the frequency for printing head replacement, further increasing the economic viability of the printers (e.g. see Sultan paragraph 0046).
Fontaine and Sultan do not specifically teach determining a first value indicative of an average print time or determining a second value indicative of an average print time. However, in the same field of invention, Oligschlaeger teaches:
determining a first value indicative of an average print time [(e.g. see Oligschlaeger paragraphs 0043, 0069) ”this may include an evaluation of such statistical metrics as mean, median, and/or mode … Print estimation module 310J may comprise instructions for estimating print times. Historical information can be used by the server computer 300 to map out printing statistics, determine trends, and form predictions. Statistical analyses can be used to estimate print times based on previously performed prints that are similar to the one that is being requested. The server computer 300 may perform statistical operations on the historical print data that is recorded according to the instructions of print data recordation module 3101. For example, printing times can be estimated as the median print time of the last 10 prints of a particular 3-dimensional object that was printed by various 3D printers connected to the print service. Furthermore, statistical operations may include determining outliers and excluding them from analysis when performing a print time estimate. For example, the median print time may only consider historical prints within 2 standards of deviation from the mean. Thus, calculations of estimated print times may not be overly affected by anomalous print times, such as those performed by malfunctioning printers, printers with a poor network connection, and/or printers with corrupted data or corrupted reports. In other implementations, print times may first be pre-calculated based on the number of lines of code for printing instructions, the estimated motor speed of a 3D printer, or the amount of material that will be sent through for print of the 3-dimensional object. The pre-calculation may be used to further identify anomalous 3D printers whose print data should not be used as historical data for an estimate. For example, if a 3D printer has a final print completion time that varies greatly form the pre-calculated estimate, the server computer 300 may assume that an error occurred that altered the print process and may exclude the printer's reported times from statistical analyses”].
determining a second value indicative of an average print time [(e.g. see Oligschlaeger paragraphs 0043, 0069) ”this may include an evaluation of such statistical metrics as mean, median, and/or mode … Print estimation module 310J may comprise instructions for estimating print times. Historical information can be used by the server computer 300 to map out printing statistics, determine trends, and form predictions. Statistical analyses can be used to estimate print times based on previously performed prints that are similar to the one that is being requested. The server computer 300 may perform statistical operations on the historical print data that is recorded according to the instructions of print data recordation module 3101. For example, printing times can be estimated as the median print time of the last 10 prints of a particular 3-dimensional object that was printed by various 3D printers connected to the print service. Furthermore, statistical operations may include determining outliers and excluding them from analysis when performing a print time estimate. For example, the median print time may only consider historical prints within 2 standards of deviation from the mean. Thus, calculations of estimated print times may not be overly affected by anomalous print times, such as those performed by malfunctioning printers, printers with a poor network connection, and/or printers with corrupted data or corrupted reports. In other implementations, print times may first be pre-calculated based on the number of lines of code for printing instructions, the estimated motor speed of a 3D printer, or the amount of material that will be sent through for print of the 3-dimensional object. The pre-calculation may be used to further identify anomalous 3D printers whose print data should not be used as historical data for an estimate. For example, if a 3D printer has a final print completion time that varies greatly form the pre-calculated estimate, the server computer 300 may assume that an error occurred that altered the print process and may exclude the printer's reported times from statistical analyses”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Fontaine, Sultan and Oligschlaeger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add determining a first value indicative of an average print time or determining a second value indicative of an average print time, as taught by Oligschlaeger, to the teachings of Fontaine and Sultan because it provides convenience and reliability of use (e.g. see Oligschlaeger paragraph 0026).
Fontaine, Sultan and Oligschlaeger do not specifically teach by means of an automated feedback loop that is configured to evaluate at least one detected operational failure event and based on that decide whether to continue the printing process … by acquiring sensor data indicative of the operation of the nozzle heads or automatically, restarting the print job with the one or more failing nozzle heads being repaired, when the second value is smaller than the first value. However, in the same field of invention, Kuster teaches:
by means of an automated feedback loop that is configured to evaluate at least one detected operational failure event and based on that decide whether to continue the printing process … by acquiring sensor data indicative of the operation of the nozzle heads [(e.g. see Kuster paragraph 0013, 0107, 0128) ”a three-dimensional printer includes at least one extruder assembly comprising a nozzle, a clog detection and cleaning system including: a sensor to detect a clogged nozzle … During the printing process, the camera or other monitoring device may optionally be included to monitor the printing of the 3D model and improve quality by providing feedback to the processing device controlling the printer assembly. When combined with the clog detection and cleaning system 868, as described below, the same camera 976 may be used to monitor both systems … the sensor 976 may detect the incorrect extruder function. For example, a clogged nozzle 110a may be detected if no filament 650 is extruded out of the nozzle 110a”].
automatically, restarting the print job with the one or more failing nozzle heads being repaired, when the second value is smaller than the first value [(e.g. see Kuster paragraphs 0073, 0128, 0133) ”the sensor 976 may detect the incorrect extruder function. For example, a clogged nozzle 110a may be detected if no filament 650 is extruded out of the nozzle 110a … Upon completion of the nozzle cleaning and filament cleaning, the extruder assembly 908 is returned to the printing position (see FIG. 11G). In some examples, as the extruder assembly 908 is returned to the printing position, the nozzle 110a may brush against a cleaning lip mounted on the filament waste basket to clean any filament left on the nozzle 110a before the printing operation is resumed. In some cases, the nozzle 110a is heated up to a normal printing temperature, and a certain amount of filament is extruded into the waste bin to refill the nozzle 110a. The extruder assembly 908 may resume an already started print job or may start a new print job. If an already started print job is resumed, the sensor 768 may aid in correct repositioning of the extruder assembly 908 … each extruder assembly 108a, 108b, 108c may be active at a particular time to extrude a respective material. For example, the nozzle 110a of extruder assembly 108a may beat and extrude the red plastic while extruder assemblies 108b, 108c are inactive. In some optional examples where the nozzles 110a, 110b, 110c include heating elements 111, only the nozzle 110a, 110b, 110c in the active extruder assembly 108a, 108b, 108c may be heated. In alternative examples, all of the nozzles 110a, 110b, 110c may be configured to heat at the same time and only the active extruder assembly 108a, 108b, 108c will supply material to its nozzle 110a, 110b, 110c for melting and extruding to generate the model 104. In other examples, at least two extruder assemblies may extrude material for generating the model 104 at the same or overlapping time period”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add by means of an automated feedback loop that is configured to evaluate at least one detected operational failure event and based on that decide whether to continue the printing process … by acquiring sensor data indicative of the operation of the nozzle heads or automatically, restarting the print job with the one or more failing nozzle heads being repaired, when the second value is smaller than the first value, as taught by Kuster, to the teachings of Fontaine, Sultan and Oligschlaeger because it allows a 3D printer having multiple extruders to efficiently print a desired 3D model without the risk that a non-active extruder may contact and cause damage to a portion of the 3D model (e.g. see Kuster paragraph 0065).
As for dependent claim 2, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 1, but Fontaine and Sultan do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Oligschlaeger teaches:
wherein the first value and second value are calculated using a statistical model [(e.g. see Oligschlaeger 0043) ”Print estimation module 310J may comprise instructions for estimating print times. Historical information can be used by the server computer 300 to map out printing statistics, determine trends, and form predictions. Statistical analyses can be used to estimate print times based on previously performed prints that are similar to the one that is being requested”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 3, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 2, but Fontaine does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Sultan teaches:
wherein the statistical model is configured to take into account a probability of operational failure events occurring [(e.g. see Sultan paragraph 0041) ”As 3D printing systems become larger and more complex, and include more printing heads for more material types and larger printing jobs, some printing heads are expected to have longer idle periods, thus the problem of repeated printing head nozzle blocking is expected to increase in severity and frequency”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 4, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 1, but Fontaine does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Sultan teaches:
wherein the first average print time and the second average print time are calculated based on a predefined probability of an operational failure event occurring per time unit [(e.g. see Sultan paragraph 0040) ”Nozzle clogging or blocking necessitates halting jobs during printing for head maintenance and/or calibration, when previously unused heads need to be re-operated, e.g., printing head purging and/or wiping sequences, and an increase in the frequency of such maintenance sequences (e.g., every 15 min., instead of every 30 min. for frequently operating heads)”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 5, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 4, but Fontaine does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Sultan teaches:
wherein the predefined probability per time unit is constant [(e.g. see Sultan paragraph 0040) ”Nozzle clogging or blocking necessitates halting jobs during printing for head maintenance and/or calibration, when previously unused heads need to be re-operated, e.g., printing head purging and/or wiping sequences, and an increase in the frequency of such maintenance sequences (e.g., every 15 min., instead of every 30 min. for frequently operating heads)”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 7, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 4, but Fontaine and Sultan do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Oligschlaeger teaches:
wherein the predefined probability per time unit is variable in function of types of error events [(e.g. see Oligschlaeger paragraph 0043) ”the median print time may only consider historical prints within 2 standards of deviation from the mean. Thus, calculations of estimated print times may not be overly affected by anomalous print times, such as those performed by malfunctioning printers … if a 3D printer has a final print completion time that varies greatly form the pre-calculated estimate, the server computer 300 may assume that an error occurred that altered the print process and may exclude the printer's reported times from statistical analyses”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 11, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 4 and Fontaine further teaches:
wherein the extrusion unit includes more than two nozzle heads [(e.g. see Fontaine paragraph 0104 and Figs. 1 and 19) ”FIG. 19 depicts an exemplary multiple head gantry system. In the depicted embodiment, multiple X-axis gantries are synchronously displaced in the y-axis direction by the y-axis drive system. By way of example and not limitation, a printer may include 3 gantries extending along the x-axis in some embodiments. Each gantry may support any suitably spaced apart number (e.g., 4) of deposition means operable for simultaneous operation with synchronous x and y-axis position profiles”]. Examiner notes that 3 gantries with 4 deposition heads per gantry results in 12 total nozzle heads.
As for independent claim 13, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach a system. Claim 13 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 14, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach a non-transitory computer readable medium for performing, when run on a controller of an extrusion system with an extrusion unit including a plurality of nozzle heads each having one or more nozzle outlets, the method according to claim 1. Claim 14 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 15, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach a method for additive manufacturing, the method comprising using the extrusion system according to claim 13 for manufacturing three-dimensional structures in parallel. Claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 13. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 13.
As for dependent claim 16, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 11 and Fontaine further teaches:
wherein the extrusion unit includes more than five nozzle heads [(e.g. see Fontaine paragraph 0104 and Figs. 1 and 19) ”FIG. 19 depicts an exemplary multiple head gantry system. In the depicted embodiment, multiple X-axis gantries are synchronously displaced in the y-axis direction by the y-axis drive system. By way of example and not limitation, a printer may include 3 gantries extending along the x-axis in some embodiments. Each gantry may support any suitably spaced apart number (e.g., 4) of deposition means operable for simultaneous operation with synchronous x and y-axis position profiles”]. Examiner notes that 3 gantries with 4 deposition heads per gantry results in 12 total nozzle heads.
As for dependent claim 17, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 16 and Fontaine further teaches:
wherein the extrusion unit includes more than ten nozzle heads [(e.g. see Fontaine paragraph 0104 and Figs. 1 and 19) ”FIG. 19 depicts an exemplary multiple head gantry system. In the depicted embodiment, multiple X-axis gantries are synchronously displaced in the y-axis direction by the y-axis drive system. By way of example and not limitation, a printer may include 3 gantries extending along the x-axis in some embodiments. Each gantry may support any suitably spaced apart number (e.g., 4) of deposition means operable for simultaneous operation with synchronous x and y-axis position profiles”]. Examiner notes that 3 gantries with 4 deposition heads per gantry results in 12 total nozzle heads.
As for dependent claim 18, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the system as described in claim 13; further, claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 2-4. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 2-4.
As for dependent claim 19, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the system as described in claim 18; further, claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 5 and 7. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 5 and 7. Examiner notes the use of “or” in the claim limitation (for the other alternatives, see the rational of claims 6 and 8-10 below).
Claims 6, 8-10, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontaine (US 2016/0067920 A1) in view of Sultan et al. (US 2022/0072799 A1) and further in view of Oligschlaeger et al. (US 2020/0326683 A1) and further in view of Kuster (US 2020/0198234 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pekic (US 2022/0203617 A1).
As for dependent claim 6, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 4, but do not specifically teach wherein the predefined probability per time unit is variable in function of elapsed time since a start of the print job. However, in the same field of invention, Pekic teaches:
wherein the predefined probability per time unit is variable in function of elapsed time since a start of the print job [(e.g. see Pekic paragraphs 0049, 0129) ”identifying issues during printing is important to prevent downtime. Since parts take time to print, it may make sense to cancel a print job if the partially printed part is deemed defective. Allowing the printer to continue printing during a failure results in wasted time, material, and possible damage. Process monitoring in conventional 3D printing systems is often subjective, as there are many criteria that determine the success of a print, and thresholds vary … This approach seeks to obtain optimization by exploring the function through semi-random probing, and probabilistically converging on a maximum or minimum given a finite period of time. As time elapses, the probability of considering less favourable solutions decreases”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger, Kuster and Pekic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the predefined probability per time unit is variable in function of elapsed time since a start of the print job, as taught by Pekic, to the teachings of Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster because it saves time, material, and possible damage to the printer during a failure (e.g. see Pekic paragraph 0049).
As for dependent claim 8, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 4, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Pekic teaches:
wherein the predefined probability per time unit is variable in function of a percentage of completion of the print job [(e.g. see Pekic paragraphs 0049, 0302) ”identifying issues during printing is important to prevent downtime. Since parts take time to print, it may make sense to cancel a print job if the partially printed part is deemed defective. Allowing the printer to continue printing during a failure results in wasted time, material, and possible damage. Process monitoring in conventional 3D printing systems is often subjective, as there are many criteria that determine the success of a print, and thresholds vary … where a failure mode is invoked to notify the user of a print failure. In some embodiments, upon detecting an error, the print job may be terminated and the partially printed part could be removed from the print bed so that the part can be reprinted under different print settings”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 6.
As for dependent claim 9, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 4, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Pekic teaches:
wherein the predefined probability per time unit is variable in function of an amount of build material already extruded by the plurality of nozzle heads [(e.g. see Pekic paragraph 0158) ”a load cell is integrated in the filament spool mount 201 to keep track of the change in filament weight over time. The objective is to avoid sending large prints that will deplete the spool halfway through. If a print runs out of filament printing material 225, the model is at risk of failing or suffering a major defect even if new filament is loaded in time”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 6.
As for dependent claim 10, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 4, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Pekic teaches:
wherein the predefined probability per time unit is variable in function of previously detected error events during the print job [(e.g. see Pekic paragraph 0249, 0250) ”The error detection process 1800 can be generalized as a method comprising creation of a virtual model of each ongoing print (e.g. a virtual model of a partially printed part), which is built up synchronously from the actual 3D model and print information for that part. From this virtual model, the system determines an expectation of what the cameras/sensors installed at the printer should be observing. This expectation is compared by the evaluator 1104 to what the cameras/sensors actually observe … The expectation is a model generated by the failure detection process 1800 that provides a reference against which real measured/observed data is compared”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 6.
As for dependent claim 12, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Pekic teaches:
wherein the first value and the second value are at least partially calculated by means of a trained machine learning model [(e.g. see Pekic paragraphs 0068, 0072, 0119, 0172) ”printer cycle time becomes more predictable and scheduling can be automated. A larger number of printers can be commanded through a single point of contact. This allows for the operation of 3D print farms with greater scalability and lower operating cost, where schedules can be set relatively farther in advance … Since the type of printing material loaded into any given printer (and in some situations, the number of printers available) can change, time estimates for print jobs can also fluctuate … Judgement from experience can be modeled for outcome prediction using current observed printing data, derived from a wealth of correlation between previous data (e.g. printing parameters) and known outcomes (e.g. whether the printed part that meets the desired specification). This type of correlation can be used in algorithmic modelling with machine learning … Implementation of the CMU can leverage recent advances in machine learning (“ML”) and artificial intelligence (“AI”) that have given rise to self-correcting systems with increasing frequency in manufacturing. These systems can be used as a more objective (or at least centralized) model of intuition based on thousands of data points and millions of correlations, which is often beyond the capacity of any human operator. ML and Al techniques can be applied to develop evaluation models and for automating material profile generation (described below) that has a sufficiently robust understanding that balances between settings, machine configuration, environment conditions, materials, and object geometry, and desired output”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 6.
As for dependent claim 20, Fontaine, Sultan, Oligschlaeger and Kuster teach the system as described in claim 18; further, claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 12. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 24 October 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, the Office identifies the components (parallel printing, failure detection, average time calculation) in isolation but fails to identify any teaching in the prior art that suggests combining them into the specific operational control algorithm recited. This constitutes an impermissible hindsight reconstruction” (Page 9).].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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).
Applicant argues that [“Sultan merely discusses various time periods (e.g. the time necessary to build one layer) … it does not teach calculating the remaining time to complete a job after failure has occurred … Sultan teaches away from the claimed invention” (Pages 9-10).].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that giving the first time period the broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be determined using only one operational head. Sultan teaches determining the time necessary to build said 3D object using an operational head (see Sultan paragraph 0017). "The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 692, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.")
Applicant argues that [“the Office also oversimplifies the invention by equating the generalized concept of “average print time” of Oligschlaeger with the specific, conditional, and forward-looking calculates required by the claimed failure recovery process” (Page 10).].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Fontaine-Sultan combination can calculate the exact time necessary to build said 3D object, but not an “average” time. Oligschlaeger is merely being used to show that an “average” instead of an exact print time can be calculated (see Oligschlaeger paragraphs 0043, 0069). Thus, the combination adequately teaches applicant’s claimed limitations.
Applicant argues that [“The method as a whole is ‘configured to evaluate … and based on that decide’, making the comparison and the consequent automatic restart a structural programming limitation, not optional post-solution activity” (Page 11).].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Within the method claim, the last limitation (“when the second value is smaller than the first value”) is conditional and carries no patentable weight as there exists a scenario where the second value is always larger than the first value and would never operate. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
Applicant argues that [“the cited prior art fails to disclose the use of a statistical model configured to take into account a probability of operational failure events occurring” (Page 11).].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the “statistical model” is not defined by the claim limitation. Sultan teaches that increasing the number of print heads increases the frequency of having blocked nozzles (see Sultan paragraph 0041). One of ordinary skill in the art, namely a software developer, would recognize that an increasing frequency of failure based on the number of nozzles can be a statistical measure. Thus, the combination adequately teaches applicant’s claimed limitation.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
Marlin, “G12 – Clean the Nozzle” version 1.1.0 released on 04 May 2017 <URL: https://marlinfw.org/docs/gcode/G012.html>. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g. in-context virtual keyboard interface).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174