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 .
Status of the Application
2. Claim 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 10/31/22 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 8 includes “A computer system comprising a memory communicatively coupled to a processor system”, however, the specification does not clearly define what the memory is, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that the memory could include transitory signals, which are non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to read “A computer system comprising a non-transitory memory communicatively coupled to a processor system” to overcome this rejection.
5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 includes “A computer program product comprising a computer readable program stored on a computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a processor system”, however, the specification does not clearly define what the “computer readable storage medium” is, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that the “storage medium” could include transitory signals, which are non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to read “A computer program product comprising a computer readable program stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,…..” to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. The term “substantially” in claim 2, 9, and 16 is a relative term which renders the
claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Minardi (US PG Pub: 2017/0052516).
10. Regarding claim 1, Minardi discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising: accessing, using a processor system, a segmented three-dimensional (3D) model of a 3D physical object, the segmented 3D model comprising a plurality of 3D model segments (e.g., For example, the computing device may be used to generate or access a 3D model of an object. In this example, a computer-aided design (CAD) program may be used to generate the 3D model. A slicer application may process the 3D model to generate commands that are executable by the 3D printing device to form a physical model of the object. For example, the slicer application may generate G-code (or other machine instructions) that instruct when and where a controller of the 3D printing device is to move an extruder and provides information regarding 3D printing device settings, such as extruder temperature, material feed rate, extruder movement direction, extruder movement speed, among others.
The slicer application may generate the G-code or the machine instructions by dividing the 3D model into layers (also referred to as “slices”). The slicer application determines a pattern of material to be deposited to form a physical model of each slice. Generally, the physical model of each slice is formed as a series or a set of lines of extruded material) (Para. [0014]-[0015], Refer to Fig. 1);
using instructions of a first 3D model segment of the plurality of 3D model segments to control a first printhead of a multiple-printhead (MPH) 3D printer (e.g., The 3D printing device 101 also includes one or more printheads. For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, the 3D printing device 101 includes a first printhead 113) (Para. [0021]) to print a first segment of the 3D physical object on a first print base of the MPH 3D printer (e.g., The controller 141 may also, or in the alternative, control one or more actuators 143 to move the deposition platform 112 relative to the printheads 113-115, to move the printheads 113-115 relative to the deposition platform 112, or both. For example, in a particular configuration, the deposition platform 112 may be configured to move in a Z direction 140. In this example, the printheads 113-115 may be configured to move in an X direction 138 and a Y direction 139 relative to the deposition platform 112. Thus, movement of one or more printheads 113-115 relative to the deposition platform 112 may involve movement of the deposition platform 112, movement of one or more of the printheads 113-115, or movement of both the deposition platform 112 and the printheads 113-115) (Para. [0023], also refer to Para. [0021]-[0022], [0024]);
and using instructions of a second 3D model segment of the plurality of 3D model segments to control a second printhead of the MPH 3D printer (e.g., a second printhead 114) (Para. [0021]) to print a second segment of the 3D physical object on a second print base of the MPH 3D printer (e.g., The controller 141 may also, or in the alternative, control one or more actuators 143 to move the deposition platform 112 relative to the printheads 113-115, to move the printheads 113-115 relative to the deposition platform 112, or both. For example, in a particular configuration, the deposition platform 112 may be configured to move in a Z direction 140. In this example, the printheads 113-115 may be configured to move in an X direction 138 and a Y direction 139 relative to the deposition platform 112. Thus, movement of one or more printheads 113-115 relative to the deposition platform 112 may involve movement of the deposition platform 112, movement of one or more of the printheads 113-115, or movement of both the deposition platform 112 and the printheads 113-115) (Para. [0023], also refer to Para. [0021]-[0022], [0024]).
11. Regarding claim 5, Minardi discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first 3D model segment and the second 3D model segment are determined based at least in part on a weight distribution of the 3D physical object (e.g., For example, the slicer application may determine a quantity of material that will be used to form a portion of the physical model, and the slicer application may insert a cleaning operation into the G-code or machine instructions when the quantity of material that will be used to form the portion satisfies a threshold. Alternately, the controller of the 3D printing device may track the quantity of material that has been deposited and interrupt the 3D printing device to clean one or more extruders when the quantity of material that has been deposited satisfies a threshold. In other implementations, deposition time of an extruder, idle time of an extruder, or both may be determined or tracked to schedule cleaning operations) (quantity of material is interpreted to a weight distribution) (Para. [0096]).
12. Regarding claim 6, Minardi discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first 3D model segment and the second 3D model segment are determined based at least in part on a shape of the 3D physical object (e.g., FIG. 4 illustrates multiple steps associated with generating commands 109, such as G-code instructions, based on a 3D model of an object. In FIG. 4, the 3D model corresponds to the sliced model 330 of FIG. 3. In operation, other 3D models, including 3D models having different shapes, different materials, etc. may be used. The 3D model may include or be based on the model data 107 of FIG. 1. In FIG. 4, the sliced model 330 is formed of multiple materials, including the first material 120 and the second material 122. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the first material 120 is used as a matrix material, and the second material 122 is used as a filler material) (Para. [0044]).
13. Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites a computer system that implement the method of claim 1, with substantially the same limitations, respectively. Therefore the rejection applied to claim 1, also applies to claim 8 respectively.
Wherein Minardi disclose a computer system comprising a memory communicatively coupled to a processor system, wherein the processor system is configured to perform processor system operations (e.g., In a particular implementation, the method 1500 may be performed by a processor and a memory. For example, the processor 103 and the memory 104 of FIG. 1. The memory 104 may be accessible to the processor 103 and the memory 104 may store instructions that when executed cause the processor 103 to perform one or more operations of the method 1500. In some implementations, the memory 104 may include or correspond to a computer-readable storage device) (Para. [0085], also refer to Fig. 1-2, computing device 101 includes memory 104, processor 103).
14. Regarding claim 12-13, as to claim 12-13, applicant is directed to citation of claim 5-6, respectively above.
15. Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 recites a computer program product that implement the method of claim 1, with substantially the same limitations, respectively. Therefore the rejection applied to claim 1, also applies to claim 15 respectively.
Wherein Minardi further teaches A computer program product comprising a computer readable program stored on a computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a processor system, causes the processor system to perform processor system operations (e.g., In a particular implementation, the method 1500 may be performed by a processor and a memory. For example, the processor 103 and the memory 104 of FIG. 1. The memory 104 may be accessible to the processor 103 and the memory 104 may store instructions that when executed cause the processor 103 to perform one or more operations of the method 1500. In some implementations, the memory 104 may include or correspond to a computer-readable storage device) (Para. [0085], also refer to Fig. 1-2, computing device 101 includes memory 104, processor 103).
16. Regarding claim 19, as to claim 19, applicant is directed to citation of claim 5 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
17. Claim 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minardi in view of Chen (Pub: 2022/0118692).
18. Regarding claim 2, Minardi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the instructions of the first 3D model segment of the plurality of 3D model segments control the first printhead of the MPH 3D printer substantially in parallel with the instructions of the second 3D model segment of the plurality of 3D model segments controlling the second printhead of the MPH 3D printer. .
Chen teaches wherein the instructions of the first 3D model segment of the plurality of 3D model segments control the first printhead of the MPH 3D printer substantially in parallel with the instructions of the second 3D model segment of the plurality of 3D model segments controlling the second printhead of the MPH 3D printer (e.g., Each printhead comprises a coating section 301, a curing section 302, a cleaning section 303 and a post-curing section 304. In this configuration, each of the three printheads 181a, 181b, 181c are disposed on a multistage platform 184 capable of moving in an x/y-plane such that the three printheads are moved as a group. Each printhead is shown to further comprise a material delivery and recycling system 401 configured to pump uncured material into the coating section 301, to vacuum uncured resin from the cleaning section 303, and to recycle uncured resin vacuumed off in the cleaning section back to the coating section. Each printhead may be configured with its own individual light source 186. Post-curing may utilize light sources different from the light sources associated with the curing sections of the printheads) (Para. [0224]).
Because Chen is also directed to a multi-material 3D printing includes multiple printheads (Para. [0003]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Minardi and Chen before him/her, to modify the teachings of Minardi to include the parallel control of printheads teaching of Chen in order to achieves desired manufacturing characteristics such as high feature resolution, fast fabrication speeds and low machine cost (Para. [0014]).
19. Regarding claim 9 and 16, as to claim 9, and 16, applicant is directed to citation of claim 2 above.
20. Claim 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minardi in view of Karri (Pub: 2023/0047710).
21. Regarding claim 3, Minardi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the MPH 3D printer comprises a collapsible print base comprising the first print base and the second print base.
Karri teaches wherein the MPH 3D printer comprises a collapsible print base comprising the first print base and the second print base (e.g., With reference specifically to the structure of the system 200, the system includes a three-dimensional (3D) printer that has a gripper base 250 (e.g., for gripping the overhang) so that 3D printing can be performed on the base while being stable (e.g., see FIGS. 3-4). The printing apparatus includes a structure to which the force components can be attached (e.g., see FIGS. 2-3). The 3D printer includes a collapsible base, which can be removed and can be created) (Para. [0030]).
Because Karri is also directed to a 3D printer (Para. [0001]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Minardi and Karri before him/her, to modify the teachings of Minardi to include the a collapsible base teaching of Karri in order to provide support during printing (Para. [0041]).
22. Regarding claim 10 and 17, as to claim 10, and 17, applicant is directed to citation of claim 3 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, and 20 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.
For claim 4, 11, and 18:
None of the prior art alone or in obvious condition disclose “controlling, using the processor system, the collapsible print base to move to a collapsed position responsive to: a completion of the first segment of the 3D physical object; and a completion of the second segment of the 3D physical object”.
For claim 7, 14, and 20:
None of the prior art alone or in obvious condition disclose “wherein the first 3D model segment and the second 3D model segment are determined based at least in part on a corpus of previously-implemented segmented 3D models”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grotjohn (Pub: 2017/0067154) disclose three-dimensional (3D) printing, and more particularly, to systems and methods for microplasma-based 3D printing (Para. [0002]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116