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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “repeat steps c) to f) …” that has typos. Should be “repeating steps c) to f) …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites:
A method for generating output machine control data that are configured to cause an additive manufacturing machine to print an object by layering extruded material, the method comprising:
a) generating event series data from input machine control data, wherein the input machine control data are configured to cause an additive manufacturing machine to print an object by layering extruded material;
b) generating mesh data, that includes a plurality of mesh elements, and linking the mesh data with the event series data so as to determine an activation time (t_act) for each mesh element, wherein the activation time (t_act) is indicative of a point in time at which the additive manufacturing machine prints a portion of the object that is represented by said mesh element;
c) determining the mesh elements that are to be activated in a next time step interval as the to-be-activated mesh elements;
d) determining neighbor mesh elements of the to-be-activated mesh elements within a predetermined boundary;
e) determining an element temperature (T_el) for the neighbor mesh elements;
f) when the element temperature exceeds or is below a predetermined temperature threshold, increasing or decreasing the activation time (t_act) of each to-be- activated mesh element and updating the corresponding entries in the event series data, otherwise leaving the activation time (t_act) of each to-be-activated mesh element unchanged;
g) repeat steps c) to f) until step c) results in no more to-be-activated mesh elements to obtain updated event series data; and,
h) converting the updated event series data into the output machine control data.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 1 recites the limitations of
“a) generating event series data from input machine control data, wherein the input machine control data are configured to cause an additive manufacturing machine to print an object by layering extruded material;
b) generating mesh data, that includes a plurality of mesh elements, and linking the mesh data with the event series data so as to determine an activation time (t_act) for each mesh element, wherein the activation time (t_act) is indicative of a point in time at which the additive manufacturing machine prints a portion of the object that is represented by said mesh element;
c) determining the mesh elements that are to be activated in a next time step interval as the to-be-activated mesh elements;
d) determining neighbor mesh elements of the to-be-activated mesh elements within a predetermined boundary;
e) determining an element temperature (T_el) for the neighbor mesh elements;
f) when the element temperature exceeds or is below a predetermined temperature threshold, increasing or decreasing the activation time (t_act) of each to-be- activated mesh element and updating the corresponding entries in the event series data, otherwise leaving the activation time (t_act) of each to-be-activated mesh element unchanged;
g) repeat steps c) to f) until step c) results in no more to-be-activated mesh elements to obtain updated event series data”.
The recited “generating …, generating …, determining …, determining …, determining …, increasing or decreasing … and repeating …” steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, generating event series data can be done in the mind or with pen and paper to define the frequency of pulse of extruding material. Pixels in current layer to be deposited can be mapped and selected in the mind or using pen and paper. The neighboring pixel adjacent to the pixels to be deposited can also be identified the mind or using pen and paper. The temperature of the neighboring pixel adjacent to the pixels to be deposited can be estimated using simplified calculation in the mind or with pen and paper. And with mind and help of pen and paper, the frequency of pulse of extruding material can be reduced when the temperature is higher than a threshold. And all the steps can be repeated for each pixel to be deposited, as long as the number of the pixels are very small. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “for generating output machine control data that are configured to cause an additive manufacturing machine to print an object by layering extruded material” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional limitations of 2) “converting the updated event series data into the output machine control data” that is merely applying print instruction generation on the recited judicial exception, these limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitation and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “for generating output machine control data that are configured to cause an additive manufacturing machine to print an object by layering extruded material”;
2) “converting the updated event series data into the output machine control data”;
Regarding 1), as explained previously, merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
Regarding 2), as explained previously, are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Applying print instruction generation on an object model are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, as disclosed in BROCHU US 20190217416 A1 and Graham US 20190240775 A1. For purposes of Step 2B, these limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not add inventive concept into the claim. Therefore claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and recites additional elements of “in step a) the input machine control data includes an indication of a target location of movement, print speed, an amount of the material extruded, or a combination thereof, and wherein the event series data is generated based on one, some, or all of these indications” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and recites additional elements of “in step a) the input machine control data comprises a sequence of commands that are indicative of a target location of movement, print speed, an amount of the material extruded, or a combination thereof, and wherein the event series data is generated from pairs of subsequent commands” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and recites additional elements of “in step b) for each mesh element, an orientation data is generated and associated with the mesh element, wherein the orientation data is indicative of an orientation of the mesh element along the three principal directions based on the printing direction” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “a total printing time is divided into a plurality of time step intervals” that merely specifies some details of the “generating …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 5 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5, and recites additional limitation of “in step c) the time step intervals each range from a step time to the step time plus a predetermined time increment” that merely specifies some details of the “determining …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 6 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “in step d) the boundary is chosen such that at least one neighbor mesh element and at least one to-be-activated mesh element belong to a different printing layer” that merely specifies some details of the “determining …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 7 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and recites additional limitation of “in step d) the boundary is chosen such that the at least one neighbor mesh element includes at least one mesh element that is located below a to-be-activated mesh element” that merely specifies some details of the “determining …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 8 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of
“in step e) the element temperature is determined based on
a) first conducted heat that gets transferred between adjacent neighbor mesh elements due to elapsed time;
b) second conducted heat (q_cond) that gets introduced into the material represented by the neighbor mesh elements due to an activation of the to-be-activated mesh elements;
c) convective heat (q_conv) that gets introduced to or removed from the material represented by neighbor mesh elements due to convection;
d) radiative heat (q_rad) that gets removed from the material represented by the neighbor mesh elements due to heat radiation;
e) latent heat (q_cryst) that is introduced to or removed from the material represented by the neighbor mesh elements due to a phase transition of that material; or
f) any combination of the foregoing”
that merely specifies some details of the “determining …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 9 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “in step h) the event series data is converted such that the activation time (t_act) according to the event series data is achieved by adapting a printing speed, by controlling a flow of pressurized air to impinge on the object, or by both” that merely specifies some details of the “determining …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 10 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “in step h) the event series data is converted such that the activation time (t_act) according to the event series data is achieved by introducing machine commands into the output machine control data that cause the additive manufacturing machine to interrupt printing for a predetermined amount of time” that merely specifies some details of the “determining …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 11 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 depends on claim1, the recited additional elements "non-transitory computer-readable medium" and "computer'' are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 depends on claim1, the recited additional elements "non-transitory computer-readable medium and " data processing apparatus” are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 "said mesh element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, "said mesh element" is construed as "the plurality of mesh elements".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the event series data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, "the event series data" is construed as "the updated event series data".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the event series data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, "the event series data" is construed as "the updated event series data".
Regarding claims 2-15, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROCHU US 20190217416 in view of Graham US 20190240775 A1.
Regarding claim 1, BROCHU teaches a method for generating output machine control data that are configured to cause an additive manufacturing machine to print an object by layering material (Fig. 1 [0040] additive manufacturing system), the method comprising:
a) generating event series data from input machine control data, wherein the input machine control data are configured to cause an additive manufacturing machine to print an object by layering material (Fig. 4 [0055] – [0057] [0072] a sequence of laser pulses associated to voxels of the region are determined based on product model for additively manufacturing slices of the article i.e. “generating event series data from input machine control data”);
b) generating mesh data, that includes a plurality of mesh elements, and linking the mesh data with the event series data so as to determine an activation time (t_act) for each mesh element, wherein the activation time (t_act) is indicative of a point in time at which the additive manufacturing machine prints a portion of the object that is represented by said mesh element (Fig. 4 [0055] – [0057] [0072] [0007] a sequence of laser pulses with spacing each energy pulse of the sequence in time i.e. “an activation time (t_act) for each mesh element” are associated with i.e. “linking” the voxels of the region i.e. “mesh data, that includes a plurality of mesh elements”);
c) determining the mesh elements that are to be activated in a next time step interval as the to-be-activated mesh elements (Fig. 4 [0055] – [0057] [0072] the voxels of the region);
d) determining neighbor mesh elements of the to-be-activated mesh elements within a predetermined boundary ([0019] the adjacent voxel that shares a border with a voxel of interest i.e. “within a predetermined boundary”);
e) determining an element temperature (T_el) for the neighbor mesh elements ([0007] [0053] determine any adjacent voxels have a temperature within a given temperature difference);
f) when the element temperature exceeds or is below a predetermined temperature threshold, increasing or decreasing the activation time (t_act) of each to-be- activated mesh element and updating the corresponding entries in the event series data, otherwise leaving the activation time (t_act) of each to-be-activated mesh element unchanged ([0007] [0053] [0073] the frequency of sequence of laser pulses is determined to control any adjacent voxels have a temperature below a given temperature difference, i.e. the “activation time (t_act) of each to-be- activated mesh element is increased” to make the temperature of adjacent voxels below a given temperature difference);
g) repeat steps c) to f) until step c) results in no more to-be-activated mesh elements to obtain updated event series data; and,
h) converting the updated event series data into the output machine control data (Fig. 4 [0074] [0094] for each voxel in the region, the parameter of each laser pulse is adapted to melt power in a corresponding voxel, and the processing instruction based on the sequence of laser pulses is generated).
BROCHU does not explicitly further teach to print the object by layering extruded material.
Graham explicitly teaches in an analogous art that to print the object by layering extruded material ([0084] the scan path thermal control method for material extrusion additive manufacturing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BROCHU to incorporate the teachings of Graham, because they all directed to additive manufacturing process, to make the method wherein to print the object by layering extruded material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to control thermal properties of FDM articles, as Graham teaches in [0084].
Regarding claim 2, BROCHU further teaches in step a) the input machine control data includes an indication of a target location of movement, print speed ([0092] the order and a speed at which successive voxels), an amount of the material extruded, or a combination thereof, and wherein the event series data is generated based on one, some, or all of these indications.
Regarding claim 3, BROCHU further teaches in step a) the input machine control data comprises a sequence of commands that are indicative of a target location of movement, print speed ([0092] sequence of laser pulse with the order and a speed at which successive voxels), an amount of the material extruded, or a combination thereof, and wherein the event series data is generated from pairs of subsequent commands.
Regarding claim 5, BROCHU further teaches a total printing time is divided into a plurality of time step intervals ([0073] pulse frequency).
Regarding claim 6, BROCHU further teaches in step c) the time step intervals each range from a step time to the step time plus a predetermined time increment ([0073] sequence of laser pulse with pulse frequency).
Regarding claim 9, BROCHU further teaches in step e) the element temperature is determined based on
a) first conducted heat that gets transferred between adjacent neighbor mesh elements due to elapsed time;
b) second conducted heat (q_cond) that gets introduced into the material represented by the neighbor mesh elements due to an activation of the to-be-activated mesh elements ([0007] [0053] determine any adjacent voxels have a temperature within a given temperature difference);
c) convective heat (q_conv) that gets introduced to or removed from the material represented by neighbor mesh elements due to convection;
d) radiative heat (q_rad) that gets removed from the material represented by the neighbor mesh elements due to heat radiation;
e) latent heat (q_cryst) that is introduced to or removed from the material represented by the neighbor mesh elements due to a phase transition of that material; or
f) any combination of the foregoing.
Regarding claim 10, BROCHU further teaches in step h) the event series data is converted such that the activation time (t_act) according to the event series data is achieved by adapting a printing speed ([0092] sequence of laser pulse with the order and a speed at which successive voxels), by controlling a flow of pressurized air to impinge on the object, or by both.
Regarding claim 11, BROCHU further teaches in step h) the event series data is converted such that the activation time (t_act) according to the event series data is achieved by introducing machine commands into the output machine control data that cause the additive manufacturing machine to interrupt printing for a predetermined amount of time (([0073] sequence of laser pulse with a frequency).
Regarding claim 13, it is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since BROCHU and Graham teach the claimed method, he teaches the program for implementing the system.
Regarding claim 14, it is directed to a data processing apparatus of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since BROCHU and Graham teach the claimed method, he teaches the data processing apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, BROCHU further teaches a) performing the method according to claim 1 so as to obtain output machine control data; and b) printing the object by layering extruded material in a manner controlled by the output machine control data ([0094]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROCHU in view of Graham as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 13-15, further in view of SATO US 20200038983 A1.
Regarding claim 7, BROCHU further teaches in step d) the boundary is chosen such that at least one neighbor mesh element and at least one to-be-activated mesh element ([0019] the adjacent voxel that shares a border with a voxel of interest).
Neither BROCHU nor Graham explicitly further teaches the at least one neighbor mesh element and at least one to-be-activated mesh element belong to a different printing layer.
SATO explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the at least one neighbor mesh element and at least one to-be-activated mesh element belong to a different printing layer ([0013] the adjacent element is in previous layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BROCHU and Graham to incorporate the teachings of SATO, because they all directed to additive manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the at least one neighbor mesh element and at least one to-be-activated mesh element belong to a different printing layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to control the start of deposition of next element, as SATO teaches in [0014].
Regarding claim 8, SATO further teaches in step d) the boundary is chosen such that the at least one neighbor mesh element includes at least one mesh element that is located below a to-be-activated mesh element ([0013] the adjacent element is in previous layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BROCHU and Graham to incorporate the teachings of SATO, because they all directed to additive manufacturing process, to make the method wherein in step d) the boundary is chosen such that the at least one neighbor mesh element includes at least one mesh element that is located below a to-be-activated mesh element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to control the start of deposition of next element, as SATO teaches in [0014].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and/or 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 1, BROCHU and Graham together teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. However, BROCHU and Graham do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
in step b) for each mesh element, an orientation data is generated and associated with the mesh element, wherein the orientation data is indicative of an orientation of the mesh element along the three principal directions based on the printing direction.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 11, BROCHU and Graham together teaches the claim limitations of claim 11. However, BROCHU and Graham do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the printing is interrupted for a predetermined amount of time while moving a hot end out of contact with the object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BULLER US 20170239892 A1 teaches controlling additive manufacturing process step by taking into consideration of temperature of adjacent cells, including FDM and FFF.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Thomas Lee can be reached on (571)272-3667. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/THOMAS C LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115