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 objections to the claims made in the previous Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 12, 14, 15, 22, 23 are allowable.
Claims 3, 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.
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, 4, 7, 8, 18, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. US 2021/0331415 (hereinafter Barnes) in view of Hudelson et al. US 2021/0170483 (hereinafter Hudelson).
Regarding claim 1, Barnes teaches: a method comprising:
forming a layer of powder (Fig. 2, [0011] - - form a layer of build material powder);
printing a plurality of patches on the layer of powder, using respective quantities of printing liquid (Fig. 2, [0044] - - forming test patches using energy absorbing agent; [0012] - - fusing agent is liquid);
obtaining sensor data from a sensor, the sensor data corresponding to at least two patches of the plurality of patches in the layer of powder, wherein the layer of powder is an uppermost layer of powder (Fig. 2, [0047] - - measure thermal characteristics of test patches);
determining, characteristics of an interaction between the printing liquid and powder in the layer of powder based on the obtained sensor data (Fig. 2, [0047] - - measure thermal characteristics of test patches and calculate thermal offsets); and
setting print parameters for a subsequent printing operation based on the determined characteristics of the interaction (Fig. 2, [0049]- [0055] - - adjust target amount of the energy absorbing agent per the thermal offsets),
wherein printing the plurality of patches on the powder comprises one or more than one of:
forming at least one patch during multiple printing passes, wherein a first proportion of a quantity of the printing liquid is deposited in a first pass, and a second proportion of the quantity of the printing liquid is deposited in a second pass (Fig. 3, [0064] - - the dispensing assembly and energy source moves across the surface, thus the patches are formed using multiple printing passes);
forming the at least two patches with different quantities of the printing liquid ([0034] - - the test patches are formed by different fusing agent, thus the patches formed with different quantities of the first type of fusing agent, the quantity of the first type of fusing agent used on test patch P2 is zero); and
forming each of the at least two patches with a different delay between the first pass in which the first proportion of the quantity of the printing liquid is deposited and the second pass in which the second proportion of the quantity of the printing liquid is deposited.
But Barnes does not explicitly teach:
obtaining visual sensor data from a sensor, the visual sensor data corresponding to parches;
determining, characteristics of an interaction between the printing liquid and a powder in the layer of powder, the determination being based on the obtained visual sensor data;
However, Hudelson teaches:
obtaining visual sensor data from a sensor, the visual sensor data corresponding to parches (Fig. 11, [0092], [0093] - - capture image of powder bed);
determining, characteristics of an interaction between the printing liquid and a powder in the layer of powder, the determination being based on the obtained visual sensor data (Fig. 11, [0092], [0093], [0056] - - analyzing the images and determine whether powder bed contains blisters, beading or smears; “blisters, beading or smears” are characteristics);
Barnes and Hudelson 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 Barnes, and incorporating using a visual sensor data, as taught by Hudelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to determining whether to adjust printing parameters, as suggested by Hudelson (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Barnes and Hudelson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Barnes further teaches: forming an additional layer of powder on top of the layer of powder;
printing a subsequent plurality of patches on the additional layer of powder, the subsequent plurality of patches being identical to the plurality of patches ([0044]-[0045] - - deposit multiple layers for each patch; M layers (M>=1); N layers (N>=1));
and obtaining sensor data corresponding to at least two patches of the subsequent plurality of patches ([0045] - - measure a thermal characteristic of the test patches using the thermal sensor).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Barnes and Hudelson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Barnes further teaches: controlling a temperature of an uppermost layer to be within a predetermined temperature range associated with the subsequent printing operation ([0022] - - control a layer temperature to a target temperature).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Barnes and Hudelson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Barnes further teaches: setting the print parameters for the subsequent printing operation comprises one or more than one of:
setting a contone level for the subsequent printing operation ([0053]-[0055] - - target amount of the energy absorbing agent),
determining a number of printing passes to be used to dispense the printing liquid (Fig. 3),
and determining a proportion of the printing liquid to be dispensed in each of the number of printing passes ([0052] - - prescribe a target proportion of each agent).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Barnes and Hudelson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Barnes further teaches: at least forming at least one patch during multiple printing passes, wherein a first proportion of a quantity of the printing liquid is deposited in a first pass, and a second proportion of the quantity of the printing liquid is deposited in a second pass (Fig. 3, [0064] - - the dispensing assembly and energy source moves across the surface, thus the patches are formed using multiple printing passes);
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Barnes and Hudelson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Barnes further teaches: forming the at least two patches with different quantities of the printing liquid ([0034] - - the test patches are formed by different fusing agent, thus the patches formed with different quantities of the first type of fusing agent, the quantity of the first type of fusing agent used on test patch P2 is zero);
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Barnes and Hudelson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Barnes further teaches: performing the subsequent printing operation (Fig. 6 - - build operation).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. US 2021/0331415 (hereinafter Barnes) in view of Hudelson et al. US 2021/0170483 (hereinafter Hudelson) and further in view of ZANDINEJAD et al. US 2017/0056138 (hereinafter ZANDINEJAD).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Barnes and Hudelson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hudelson further teaches:
determining, by processing the obtained visual sensor data, in which of the plurality of patches the printing liquid has substantially infiltrated the powder ([0092], [0093], [0056] - - analyzing the images and determine whether powder bed contains blisters, beading or smears; since beading & etc. was caused by not absorbed binder, the area that does not contain defect is the area the printing liquid has substantially infiltrated the powder), and
But the combination of Barnes and Hudelson does not explicitly teach:
determining which of the at least two patches was formed using a higher amount of the printing liquid.
However, ZANDINEJAD teaches:
determining which of the at least two patches was formed using a higher amount of the printing liquid (Fig. 29, [0044], [0121] - - test patches using binder saturation levels of 45%, 50%,60% and 70%; since the binder amount was determined before printing, which patch has higher amount is determined);
Barnes, Hudelson and ZANDINEJAD 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 the combination of Barnes and Hudelson, and incorporating determining which patch uses a higher amount of printing liquid, as taught by ZANDINEJAD.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to evaluating the effect of saturation level on the print quality, as suggested by ZANDINEJAD ([0121]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. US 2021/0331415 (hereinafter Barnes) in view of Hudelson et al. US 2021/0170483 (hereinafter Hudelson) and further in view of Champion et al. US 2022/0080508 (hereinafter Champion).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Barnes and Hudelson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Barnes and Hudelson does not explicitly teach: forming each patch of the plurality of patches with the respective quantities of the printing liquid within a predetermined printing liquid range, the predetermined printing liquid range being associated with either or both of properties of the powder of the layer of powder and an operative range associated with a dispenser of the printing liquid.
However, Champion teaches: : forming each patch of the plurality of patches with the respective quantities of the printing liquid within a predetermined printing liquid range, the predetermined printing liquid range being associated with either or both of properties of the powder of the layer of powder and an operative range associated with a dispenser of the printing liquid ([0013] - - the target fill level of liquid binder depends on the layer thickness and the powder packing density. The target level range between 45 and 55%. [0016] - - modify the amount of liquid agent at different locations).
Barnes, Hudelson and Champion 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 the combination of Barnes and Hudelson, and incorporating a predetermined printing liquid range, as taught by Champion.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve object quality, as suggested by Champion ([0013]).
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