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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 17, 19, 21 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 is duplicated with claim 19. Applicant is advised change claim 23 from depending on claim 16 to depending on claim 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the selected chromosome”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to add “selecting one of the chromosomes based on at least the fitness measures;”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 16, 18, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by CLAES US 2017/0252978 (hereinafter CLAES).
Regarding claim 1, CLAES teaches: a method, comprising:
performing, by a processor, a process for a plurality of iterations, wherein the process comprises:
generating chromosomes in a genetic procedure, wherein the chromosomes respectively indicate different packings of objects in a build volume of an additive manufacturing device ([0049] - -3D design e.g. objects in a current position/orientation), the objects including one or more first objects and a plurality of second objects ([0038] - - fixed objects and non-fixed objects), and
wherein the first objects have predefined static positions within the build volume that remain fixed over the different packings of the chromosomes during chromosome generation across the iterations, and the second objects have dynamic positions within the build volume that are modifiable during the chromosome generation in each iteration ([0038] - - fixed objects and non-fixed objects); and
determining fitness measures corresponding to the chromosomes, wherein the fitness measures determined in each iteration other than a last iteration are used during the chromosome generation in a subsequent iteration ([0048] - - the 3D design criteria, e.g. slice area distribution are fitness measures);
selecting one of the chromosomes based on at least the fitness measures ([0048] - -select 3D design based on whether the design satisfy the criteria);
and
causing the additive manufacturing device to additively manufacture the objects in the build volume in accordance with the different packing of the objects indicated by the selected chromosome ([0048] - - selected 3D design for printing).
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 2, CLAES teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
CLAES further teaches: the build volume includes first and second subsets of a build volume,
wherein the predefined static positions of the first objects are in the first subset, such that the first objects are located within the first subset,
and wherein the dynamic positions of the second objects are in the second subset, such that the second objects remain within the second subset over the different packings of the chromosomes during the chromosome generation ([0038] - - fixed objects and non-fixed objects; the volume taken by fixed objects is first subset, the volume taken by non- fixed objects is second subset).
Regarding claim 3, CLAES teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
CLAES further teaches: the first and second subsets are mutually exclusively with one another ([0038] - - fixed objects and non-fixed objects; the volume taken by fixed objects is first subset, the volume taken by non- fixed objects is second subset; the subsets are mutually exclusively with one another since once a subset is taken by a fixed object the subset can no longer taken by other objects).
Regarding claim 5, CLAES teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
CLAES further teaches: selecting the one of the chromosomes based on at least the fitness measures comprises:
determining, for each chromosome, values for a plurality of parameters regarding
the different packing of the objects indicated by the chromosome ([0041] - - the quality metrics (e.g. amplitude, smoothness & etc.) are values); and
determining packing scores corresponding to the chromosomes, the packing score of each chromosome determined based on the fitness measure of the chromosome and the values for the parameters that have been determined for the chromosome ([0040], [0041], [0048] - - the overall quality metrics is calculated based on formula including multiple quality metrics, the overall quality metrics are scores).
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by CLAES US 2017/0252978 (hereinafter CLAES) in view of Martin et al. US 2021/0339478 (hereinafter Martin).
Regarding claim 6, CLAES teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But CLAES does not explicitly teach: calibrating the additive manufacturing device based on at least one of the first objects after additive manufacture thereof.
However, Martin teaches: calibrating the additive manufacturing device based on at least one of the first objects after additive manufacture thereof (Fig. 5 - - calibration objects are arranged at locations reserved).
CLAES and Martin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by CLAES, and incorporating calibrating 3D printer based on calibration objects, as taught by Martin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve 3D printing, as suggested by Martin ([0001]).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by CLAES US 2017/0252978 (hereinafter CLAES) in view of Zhao et al. US 2018/0111320 (hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 7, CLAES teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But CLAES does not explicitly teach: additive manufacture of at least one of the first objects modifies thermal build material behavior in the build volume.
However, Zhao teaches: additive manufacture of at least one of the first objects modifies thermal build material behavior in the build volume (Fig. 5A, 5B, [0040] - - printing sacrificial objects for temperature adjustment).
CLAES and Zhao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by CLAES, and incorporating printing objects to modify thermal build material behavior in the build volume, as taught by Zhao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to ensure the temperature at a target region is within a proper range, as suggested by Zhao ([0017]).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by CLAES US 2017/0252978 (hereinafter CLAES) in view of Garcia et al. US 2018/0259939 (hereinafter Garcia).
Regarding claim 8, CLAES teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But CLAES does not explicitly teach: at least one of the first objects is a partition in the build volume between the second objects.
However, Garcia teaches: at least one of the first objects is a partition in the build volume between the second objects (Fig. 11a, 11b, 11c, [0070],[0075] - - manufacture a partition between the first object and the second object).
CLAES and Garcia are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by CLAES, and incorporating printing a partition between the 3D printing objects, as taught by Garcia.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to efficiently printing objects from different build materials, as suggested by Garcia ([0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights