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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, made in the previous Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson et al. US 2020/0174713 (hereinafter Lawson) in view of Sadovnik US 6,980,934 (hereinafter Sadovnik).
Regarding claim 1, Lawson teaches: a method, comprising:
Loading, by a processor, a first object in a first subset of a volume ([0030] - - placement of each object one at a time); and
determining, by a processor, using a genetic procedure, an arrangement of second objects in a second subset of the volume to produce a packing that includes the first object and the second objects in the volume (Fig. 1C, [0030] - - place objects).
manufacturing, by the processor, the first object and the second objects by transmitting instruction to an additive manufacturing device causing the additive manufacturing device to execute the selected packing to arrange and manufacture the first object and the second object in the volume based on the selected packing ([0052] - - transmits print instructions toward 3D printer).
But Lawson does not explicitly teach:
ranking, by the processor, the packing relative to one or more other packings based on a fitness measure that indicates a degree to which each packing satisfies one or more objectives;
selecting, by the processor, the packing that is ranked the best in satisfying the objectives;
However, Sadovnik teaches:
ranking, by the processor, the packing relative to one or more other packings based on a fitness measure that indicates a degree to which each packing satisfies one or more objectives (C7, L45-L55 - - ranks different nests according to their compactness (using heuristic variables));
selecting, by the processor, the packing that is ranked the best in satisfying the objectives (C7, L45-L55 - - the ones that ranked highest are passed to the next step);
Lawson and Sadovnik are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to nesting objects.
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 Lawson, and incorporating ranking, as taught by Sadovnik.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve packing a plurality of three dimensional parts in a target volume, as suggested by Sadovnik (C14, L35-37).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the first subset is mutually exclusive from the second subset (Fig. 1C, [0030] - - place objects; each object is separated, thus they are mutually exclusive).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the first object is static during execution of the genetic procedure ([0079] - - objects are positioned after objects are sorted, thus objects are static during placement).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the first object is represented in a locked portion of a chromosome and the second objects are represented in a modifiable portion of the chromosome ([0052] - - objects are placed in a snaking fashion).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the first object is a proxy object, and wherein the method further comprises:
evaluating the first object to determine a metric of the manufacturing ([0030] - -packing density is a metric of manufacturing).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: printing a portion of the first object ([0048] - - manufacturing using 3D printer); and
calibrating a printer based on the first object ([0077] - - each like subset is printed using the same set of production parameters; setting production parameters is calibrating a printer).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the first object is to modify thermal behavior of material in manufacturing ([0045] - - annealing is modifying thermal behavior).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the first object is a partition in the volume between the second objects ([0047] - - a given object is paired with the object positioned above and the object positioned below, thus the given object is a partition in the volume between the object positioned above and the object positioned below).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: determining, using a first genetic procedure, a first arrangement of first objects comprising the first object, wherein the first genetic procedure is performed in a stage before the genetic procedure ([0051] - - sorts objects into like subsets is a first genetic procedure, sorting is performed before placement of subsets).
Regarding claim 10, Lawson teaches: an apparatus, comprising:
a memory;
an additive manufacturing device ([0052] - - 3D printer);
a processor coupled to the memory and the additive manufacturing device, wherein the processor is to:
load first information into a first portion of a chromosome, wherein the first information represents first objects in a static arrangement ([0030] - - placement of each object one at a time);
initialize a second portion of the chromosome with second information representing second objects; executing a genetic procedure on the second portion of the chromosome to determine a packing of the first objects and the second objects (Fig. 1C, [0030] - - place objects).
manufacture the first object and the second objects by transmitting instruction to an additive manufacturing device causing the additive manufacturing device to execute the selected packing to arrange and manufacture the first object and the second object in a volume based on the selected packing ([0052] - - transmits print instructions toward 3D printer).
But Lawson does not explicitly teach:
rank the packing relative to one or more other packings based on a fitness measure that indicates a degree to which each packing satisfies one or more objectives;
select the packing that is ranked the best in satisfying the objectives;
However, Sadovnik teaches:
rank the packing relative to one or more other packings based on a fitness measure that indicates a degree to which each packing satisfies one or more objectives (C7, L45-L55 - - ranks different nests according to their compactness (using heuristic variables));
select the packing that is ranked the best in satisfying the objectives (C7, L45-L55 - - the ones that ranked highest are passed to the next step);
Lawson and Sadovnik are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to nesting objects.
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 apparatus, as taught by Lawson, and incorporating ranking, as taught by Sadovnik.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve packing a plurality of three dimensional parts in a target volume, as suggested by Sadovnik (C14, L35-37).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the chromosome comprises a sequence of object identifiers with corresponding orientations ([0042] - - orientation pattern of a number of shapes).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the first objects have a static placement in a first subset of the volume, and wherein the genetic procedure iterates orientations of the second objects in a second subset of the volume ([0040], [0049]-[0050] - - determining the repeating orientation pattern of a number of shapes).
Regarding claim 13, Lawson teaches: an non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing executable code, comprising:
code to cause a processor to place first objects in a first subset of a volume at static coordinates of the volume ([0030] - - placement of each object one at a time; [0079] - - objects are positioned);
code to cause the processor to use a genetic procedure to determine orientations of second objects in chromosomes ([0032] - - orientation of each object relative to each other object is set);
code to cause the processor to determine placements of the second objects in a second subset of the volume based on the chromosomes ([0030], [0079] - - objects are positioned); and
code to cause the processor to determine a packing based on the placements ([0030], [0079] - - objects are positioned).
code to cause the processor to manufacture the first object and the second objects by transmitting instruction to an additive manufacturing device causing the additive manufacturing device to execute the selected packing to arrange and manufacture the first object and the second object in the volume based on the selected packing ([0052] - - transmits print instructions toward 3D printer).
But Lawson does not explicitly teach:
code to cause the processor to rank the packing relative to one or more other packings based on a fitness measure that indicates a degree to which each packing satisfies one or more objectives;
code to cause the processor to select the packing that is ranked the best in satisfying the objectives;
However, Sadovnik teaches:
code to cause the processor to rank the packing relative to one or more other packings based on a fitness measure that indicates a degree to which each packing satisfies one or more objectives (C7, L45-L55 - - ranks different nests according to their compactness (using heuristic variables));
code to cause the processor to select the packing that is ranked the best in satisfying the objectives (C7, L45-L55 - - the ones that ranked highest are passed to the next step);
Lawson and Sadovnik are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to nesting objects.
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 medium, as taught by Lawson, and incorporating ranking, as taught by Sadovnik.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve packing a plurality of three dimensional parts in a target volume, as suggested by Sadovnik (C14, L35-37).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing executable code, comprising:
code to cause a processor to place first objects in a first subset of a volume at static coordinates of the volume ([0030] - - placement of each object one at a time; [0079] - - objects are positioned);
code to cause the processor to use a genetic procedure to determine orientations of second objects in chromosomes ([0032] - - orientation of each object relative to each other object is set);
code to cause the processor to determine placements of the second objects in a second subset of the volume based on the chromosomes ([0030], [0079] - - objects are positioned); and
code to cause the processor to determine a packing based on the placements ([0030], [0079] - - objects are positioned).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lawson and Sadovnik teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lawson further teaches: the second subset is bounded by the first subset (Fig. 1C, [0031]-[0032] - - object columns shows the first subset which is the top items of each column bounds the second subset which are the items under the top items in each column).
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 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