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 .
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 1 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 1 recites the limitation “for the first relative position, computing a first amount of excess material to be deposited within the beyond the contours of the object.” As written, the claim presents two opposing limitations that contradict each other which muddies the intended scope of the claim and raises am issue of indefinite language. For the sake of examination, the limitation will be understood as “beyond the contours” in line with the presentation of the limitation regarding the “second relative filling position.” Appropriate correction is recommended.
Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lecompere (US 2022/0347917 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
384
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
310
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Lecompere teaches an additive manufacturing system (“additive manufacturing” Abstract) for forming an object (“an optical element” abstract), by cumulative discrete depositions (“several…discrete units” [0038]) of feedstock material (“material” [0037]) into specific voxel locations (“Voxel” positions [0041]) and according to a three- dimensional digital data model describing the object's surface (“3D model” [0073]), a method comprising:
obtaining a two-dimensional model slice derived by computing an intersection between a plane and the three-dimensional digital data model (from the model, the “3D geometry is sliced into several layers of the same thickness” [0113]), the model slice depicting one or more contours of the object within the plane (See Figures 5A, 5B, and 5C “the sliced outline may comprise one or more external outline” [0120]);
electing a tessellated two-dimensional template pattern representing the voxel spaces within which a material may be deposited to form a solid layer of the material (election occurs from Figures 5A, and 5B);
using a first relative positioning (Figure 5A “position of the first set of voxels” [0041]) between the template pattern and the model slice, superimposing the template pattern upon the model slice and identifying a first set of required voxel spaces (Figure 5A “first set of voxels” [0041]) represented within the template pattern that would need to be filled by the material to ensure that the material is present at every point along the object contours depicted in the model slice (Shown in Figure 5A, [0165]) ; for the first relative positioning, computing a first amount of excess material to be deposited within the beyond the contours of the object due to filling the first set of required voxel spaces (“the position of the first set of voxels relative to the surface of curable material is defined as a function of the geometry of said outline and as a function of the geometry of the voxels; [0043] the position of the first set of voxels is defined so as to minimize the root mean square of a function of a surface error between a projection of the outline of the first set of voxels and a projection of said outline in a same plane, said function being defined to take into account the type of post-processing process;” The root mean square requires calculating the excess material. Minimizing the root mean square will generally result in selecting a lower value of excess. Note that “various functions can be used” [0192].) ;
using at least one second relative positioning between the template pattern and the model slice ([0187]-[0193] and Figs 7A-7D show considering multiple positions for a related embodiment ), different than the first relative positioning, superimposing the template pattern upon the model slice and identifying a second set of required voxel spaces represented within the template pattern that would need to be filled by the material to ensure that the material is present at every point along the object contours depicted in the model slice ([0165]); for the at least one second relative positioning, computing a second amount of excess material ([0187]-[0193]) that would be deposited beyond the contours of the object due to filling the second set of required voxel spaces;
and outputting instructions directing the system to form the layer of the object (required for machining step in Fig 5C) by depositing material into the first set of required voxel spaces if the first amount of excess is less than the second amount of excess or, alternatively, by depositing material into the second set of voxel spaces if the second amount of excess is less than the first amount of excess (which set of “first voxels” are selected is such that the position of the first set of voxels is defined so as to minimize the root mean square of a function of a surface error between a projection of the outline of the first set of voxels and a projection of said outline in a same plane, said function being defined to take into account the type of post-processing process”[0042]. As such, to effectively minimize the root means square error, the system must calculate the cumulative difference between excess amounts of the different alternate first voxel positions in order to minimize the amount of excess produced and select the option with the minimum excess accordingly. As such, the art reads on the limitations of the claims).
Regarding Claim 5: Lecompere further teaches that the method comprises: comparing computed amounts of excess material for a plurality of sets of first and second relative positionings ([0188]-[0190]) and outputting instructions directing the system to form the layer of the object by depositing material into a required set of voxel spaces for which the computed amount of excess material is lowest (which set of “first voxels” are selected is such that the position of the first set of voxels is defined so as to minimize the root mean square of a function of a surface error between a projection of the outline of the first set of voxels and a projection of said outline in a same plane, said function being defined to take into account the type of post-processing process”[0042]. As such, to effectively minimize the root means square error, the system must calculate the cumulative difference between excess amounts of the different alternate first voxel positions in order to minimize the amount of excess produced and select the option with the minimum excess accordingly. As such, the art reads on the limitations of the claims).
Regarding Claim 6 and 7: Lecompere further teaches that the first and second relative positionings (alternative sets of “first voxels” [0041]) differ by at least one transformation selected from the group consisting of: translation, rotation, scaling and distortion (translation is shown for alternate voxel sets in figure 7 A-D wherein each voxel set is different by translation along the X and Y axes, [0188]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Topaz Elliot can be reached at (571) 270-5851. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights