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 claims filed 1/31/2023 have been considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 01/31/2023 has been considered except for Non-Patent Literature No. 1 (Creality) because the provided copy is illegible.
Drawings
The drawings filed 1/31/2023 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the one or more bocks" should read "the one or more blocks". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 8. and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. (US 20040170459 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches a processor-implemented method for 3D printing (Paragraph 18), the method comprising:
arranging and manipulating an array of wheels on a baseplate (Paragraph 86 “such as moving substrate blocks 20 with ‘rubber-wheels,’”);
analyzing shape and/or dimensions of an object to be 3D printed (Paragraph 56);
determining an arrangement of one or more blocks on which to print the object to be 3D printed based on the analyzing of the shape and/or dimensions of the object to be 3D printed (Paragraphs 58-59 “The overall size…number of layers and their thickness”, “substrate blocks 20 are utilized upon the support bed 10”);
positioning, using the array of wheels, the one or more blocks into the determined arrangement (Paragraph 86); and
printing a 3D object onto the one or more arranged blocks (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor teaches a computer system for 3D printing (Fig. 5 computer 41), the computer system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories (Fig. 5 computer 41), wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising:
arranging and manipulating an array of wheels on a baseplate (Paragraph 86 “such as moving substrate blocks 20 with ‘rubber-wheels,’”);
analyzing shape and/or dimensions of an object to be 3D printed (Paragraph 56);
determining an arrangement of one or more blocks on which to print the object to be 3D printed based on the analyzing of the shape and/or dimensions of the object to be 3D printed (Paragraphs 58-59 “The overall size…number of layers and their thickness”, “substrate blocks 20 are utilized upon the support bed 10”);
positioning, using the array of wheels, the one or more blocks into the determined arrangement (Paragraph 86); and
printing the object to be 3D printed onto the one or more arranged blocks (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 15, Taylor teaches a computer program product for 3D printing (Fig. 5 computer 41), the computer program product comprising:
one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium (Fig. 5 computer 41), the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
arranging and manipulating an array of wheels on a baseplate ((Paragraph 86 “such as moving substrate blocks 20 with ‘rubber-wheels,’”);
analyzing shape and/or dimensions of an object to be 3D printed (Paragraph 56);
determining an arrangement of one or more blocks on which to print the object to be 3D printed based on the analyzing of the shape and/or dimensions of the object to be 3D printed (Paragraphs 58-59 “The overall size…number of layers and their thickness”, “substrate blocks 20 are utilized upon the support bed 10”);
positioning, using the array of wheels, the one or more blocks into the determined arrangement (Paragraph 86); and
printing the object to be 3D printed onto the one or more arranged blocks (Paragraph 15).
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 20040170459 A1) in light of Butler et al. (US 20150057784 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor teaches the method of claim 1.
Taylor does not teach creating a parallel printing ecosystem.
However, Butler teaches creating a parallel printing ecosystem (Paragraph 20).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the method for 3D printing of Taylor with the parallel printing ecosystem of Butler to provide additional flexibility (Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Taylor and Butler teaches the method of claim 2.
Taylor also teaches 3D printing on arranged blocks (Paragraph 15).
Butler also teaches the method of claim 2, wherein creating the parallel printing ecosystem comprises splitting up the object to be 3D printed into split parts (Paragraph 20 “dividing a job into multiple parts”), assigning split parts of the object to be 3D printed to at least one 3D printer (Paragraph 20 “printed in parallel on a single 3D printer or on more than one”), and printing the split parts of the object using the at least one 3D printer (Paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Taylor and Butler teaches the method of claim 3.
Taylor also teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising:
moving at least one printed split part of the 3D object and/or the 3D object, using the array of wheels, to a different location on the baseplate (Paragraph 16);
Taylor does not specifically teach identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object; and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object.
However, Butler teaches identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object (Paragraph 92 “with information about how much of the object has been printed being retained”); and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 90 “Where jobs are added on-the-fly, it may be necessary to form flat surfaces in the support material before a new job can be started”).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the method for 3D printing of Taylor with the additional blocks of Butler in case the job needs to be updated (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor teaches the method of claim 1.
Taylor does not specifically teach identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object; and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object.
However, Butler teaches identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object (Paragraph 92 “with information about how much of the object has been printed being retained”); and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 90 “Where jobs are added on-the-fly, it may be necessary to form flat surfaces in the support material before a new job can be started”).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the method for 3D printing of Taylor with the additional blocks of Butler in case the job needs to be updated (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Taylor and Butler teaches the method of claim 5.
Taylor also teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising:
moving the at least one additional block to its correct position on the baseplate based on if the at least one additional block is determined to be needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor teaches the method of claim 1.
Taylor also teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
using at least one 3D printing nozzle to print the 3D object, wherein each 3D printing nozzle may contain the same and/or a different type of filament (Paragraph 15 where the printer must have a nozzle and there is only one choice of filament).
Regarding claim 9, Taylor teaches the computer system of claim 8.
Taylor does not teach creating a parallel printing ecosystem.
However, Butler teaches creating a parallel printing ecosystem (Paragraph 20).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the parallel printing ecosystem of Butler with the system for 3D printing of Taylor to provide additional flexibility (Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Taylor and Butler teaches the computer system of claim 9.
Taylor also teaches 3D printing on arranged blocks (Paragraph 15).
Butler also teaches the computer system of claim 9, wherein creating the parallel printing ecosystem comprises splitting up the object to be 3D printed into split parts (Paragraph 20 “dividing a job into multiple parts”), assigning split parts of the object to be 3D printed to at least one 3D printer (Paragraph 20 “printed in parallel on a single 3D printer or on more than one”), and printing the split parts of the object using the at least one 3D printer (Paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Taylor and Butler teaches the computer system of claim 10.
Taylor also teaches the computer system of claim 10, further comprising:
moving at least one printed split part of the 3D object and/or the 3D object, using the array of wheels, to a different location on the baseplate (Paragraph 16);
Taylor does not specifically teach identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object; and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object.
However, Butler teaches identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object (Paragraph 92 “with information about how much of the object has been printed being retained”); and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 90 “Where jobs are added on-the-fly, it may be necessary to form flat surfaces in the support material before a new job can be started”).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system for 3D printing of Taylor with the additional blocks of Butler in case the job needs to be updated (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor teaches the computer system of claim 8.
Taylor does not specifically teach identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object; and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object.
However, Butler teaches identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object (Paragraph 92 “with information about how much of the object has been printed being retained”); and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 90 “Where jobs are added on-the-fly, it may be necessary to form flat surfaces in the support material before a new job can be started”).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system for 3D printing of Taylor with the additional blocks of Butler in case the job needs to be updated (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Taylor and Butler teaches the computer system of claim 12.
Taylor also teaches the computer system of claim 12, further comprising:
moving the at least one additional block to its correct position on the baseplate based on if the at least one additional block is determined to be needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 14, Taylor teaches the computer system of claim 8.
Taylor also teaches the computer system of claim 8, further comprising:
using at least one 3D printing nozzle to print the 3D object, wherein each 3D printing nozzle may contain the same and/or a different type of filament (Paragraph 15 where the printer must have a nozzle and there is only one choice of filament).
Regarding claim 16, Taylor teaches the computer program product of claim 15.
Taylor does not teach creating a parallel printing ecosystem.
However, Butler teaches creating a parallel printing ecosystem (Paragraph 20).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the parallel printing ecosystem of Butler with the computer program product for 3D printing of Taylor to provide additional flexibility (Paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 17, Taylor teaches the computer program product of claim 16.
Taylor also teaches 3D printing on arranged blocks (Paragraph 15).
Butler also teaches the computer program product of claim 16, wherein creating the parallel printing ecosystem comprises splitting up the object to be 3D printed into split parts (Paragraph 20 “dividing a job into multiple parts”), assigning split parts of the object to be 3D printed to at least one 3D printer (Paragraph 20 “printed in parallel on a single 3D printer or on more than one”), and printing the split parts of the object using the at least one 3D printer (Paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Taylor and Butler teaches the computer program product of claim 17.
Taylor also teaches the computer program product of claim 17, further comprising:
moving at least one printed split part of the 3D object and/or the 3D object, using the array of wheels, to a different location on the baseplate (Paragraph 16);
Taylor does not specifically teach identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object; and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object.
However, Butler teaches identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object (Paragraph 92 “with information about how much of the object has been printed being retained”); and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 90 “Where jobs are added on-the-fly, it may be necessary to form flat surfaces in the support material before a new job can be started”).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the computer program product for 3D printing of Taylor with the additional blocks of Butler in case the job needs to be updated (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 19, Taylor teaches the computer program product of claim 15.
Taylor does not specifically teach identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object; and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object.
However, Butler teaches identifying level of printing progress of the 3D object (Paragraph 92 “with information about how much of the object has been printed being retained”); and
determining if additional one or more blocks are needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 90 “Where jobs are added on-the-fly, it may be necessary to form flat surfaces in the support material before a new job can be started”).
Both Taylor and Butler are analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the field of 3D printing. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the computer program product for 3D printing of Taylor with the additional blocks of Butler in case the job needs to be updated (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Taylor and Butler teaches the computer program product of claim 19.
Taylor also teaches the computer program product of claim 19, further comprising:
moving the at least one additional block to its correct position on the baseplate based on if the at least one additional block is determined to be needed to finish printing the 3D object (Paragraph 86).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM XIANG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30 AM - 5 PM 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 5712722748. 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.
/WILLIAM XIANG ZHANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117