DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment to the claims and drawings filed on 11 October 2023, and the application is being examined on the basis of the amended disclosure.
Claims 34-53 are pending.
Claims 34-53 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that instant application is a Continuation of Application 18/115,813 and has been accorded the original priority date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 53 recites “cause the one or more processors to execute one or more of (b), (c), and (d) of claim 34”, which fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 34-35, 37, 49 and 50-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0129184 in view of Demuth et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0232515.
Regarding Claim 34, Buller teaches:
An apparatus (see e.g. fig. 5A) for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, ([0002] “a three-dimensional (3D) object of any shape from a design”) the apparatus comprising at least one controller (see [0016] describing first and second controllers, which may be the same controller [0017]) configured to: (a) couple to a power source, ([0319] “The system and/or apparatus described herein (e.g., controller)… may comprise a plug and/or a socket (e.g., electrical, AC power, DC power).”) and operatively coupled to a 3D printer configured to print the 3D object ([0016] “an apparatus for forming at least one 3D object comprises (a) a first controller that directs an energy beam to transform at least a portion of a material bed to form the at least one 3D object”) comprising an elemental metal, a metal alloy, a ceramic, or an allotrope of elemental carbon; ([0030] “The material bed can include a powder bed comprising individual (e.g., solid) particles formed of at least one member selected from the group consisting of an elemental metal, metal alloy, ceramic, and an allotrope of elemental carbon. “)
receive from the user a selection of parameters, the user being a client requesting the 3D object, ([0296] “the controller receives three types of target inputs: (i) energy beam power 1310 (which may be user defined), (ii) temperature (e.g., 1305), and (iii) geometry (e.g., 1335).”)
the parameters comprising a printing parameter or a 3D object parameter, (ibid. at least “energy beam power 1310”);
the parameters being used in a simulation of the printing of at least a portion of the 3D object, ([0297] “A control-model may predict and/or estimate one or more physical parameters (e.g., 1371) of the forming 3D object”) the simulation utilized to predict failure of at least a portion of the 3D object during the printing ([0300] “The 3D printing instructions may be based on simulations (e.g., as disclosed herein). … may take into account a deviation in shape (e.g., geometry) from the model. The deviation may be a structural (e.g., geometrical) deviation”; such as [0136] “The deformation may comprise bending, warping, arching, curving, twisting, balling, cracking, dislocating, or any combination thereof.”)
the simulation being conducted before the printing, ([0300] “ The 3D printing instructions may be based on simulations (e.g., as disclosed herein).” [0301] “The correction of errors may be prior and/or during the 3D printing (e.g., in real-time). In this manner, the algorithm may circumvent generation of errors (e.g., structural errors such as deformations).”)
(c) execute, or direct execution of the simulation before the printing to generate a result; ([0301] “The algorithm may be based on an estimation of one or more errors (e.g., before or during the printing of the desired 3D object) and correcting them through the generation of respective 3D printing instructions that take into account the anticipated errors, and thus circumvent the generation of the errors. … The estimation may be based on simulation”)
and (d) direct the 3D printer to print the 3D object based at least in part on compliance of the result of the simulation ([0301] “Operation 1204 illustrates the generation of printing instruction(s) for the 3D object, in which at least one of the 3D model and the algorithm is utilized. In this example, the 3D object is subsequently generated using the printing instruction(s) in operation 1205.”)
Buller differs from the claimed invention in that:
Buller does not appear to clearly articulate: (b) received from a user allowed tolerance for the 3D object,
Predicting the failure within allowed tolerances requested by the user
an output of the simulation being evaluated according to the allowed tolerances;
printing based on a compliance… with the allowed tolerances of the user.
However, DeMuth teaches an additive manufacturing system (see e.g. fig. 1) which simulates the production of a 3D object (see e.g. fig. 4, 402 “simulation”) which includes receiving from a user allowed tolerance for the 3D object ([0070] A user 517 is able to exchange data 519 with a remotely accessed computer 520 by sending CAD files, specifying an additive process to simulate, and providing a resultant acceptable stress map and allowable manufacturing tolerances. ) including predicting failure based on the allowed tolerances ([0069] “The AM process is then simulated and resultant stress distribution, crystal structure, and other relevant properties are evaluated from the simulation 402. The simulation results are evaluated (step 410) and if not acceptable, the manufacturing parameters and/or design of the part are modified and the manufacturing process is re-simulated 411” [0070] “Once completed, a comparative metric 522 compares the output of the simulation with the user supplied requirements and tolerances.”) and printing the part if the simulation is compliant with the allowed tolerances ([0070] “However, if the results of 521 meet the user specified comparative metrics 522, then the successful manufacturing information can be passed to the additive manufacturing machine 526 via data channel 524.” )
Buller and DeMuth are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of additive manufacturing and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each receives a model of a 3D object to be produced by additive manufacturing, each simulates the production of the object in order to determine if the object will be produced successfully.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Buller to include receiving user allowed tolerances for the object from the user, as well as comparing the results of the simulation to said tolerances to determine compliance, as suggested by DeMuth.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure production of a quality part meeting design requirements, as suggested by DeMuth (e.g. [0073] “The simulation process is repeated 863 to verify good build quality within tolerance limits, and the part is re-analyzed 858. After re-simulating, it is found that the base pillar 865 is still as desired, and now the overhang 866 is within tolerance limits as well. The article of verified quality achieved by the current print parameters is ready to be printed.”)
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Buller further teaches:
wherein the parameters comprise a threshold value of one or more simulated values ([0297] “For example, the control-model may use geometric information (e.g., 1335) associated with the requested and/or forming 3D object. The control-model may set up a feedback control loop (e.g., 1330) to adjust one or more target parameters in order to achieve convergence (e.g., with the desired 3D object). The feedback loop(s) control may comprise one or more comparisons with an input parameter (e.g., 1320) and/or threshold value (e.g., 1380). relating to at least one of the 3D object parameter comprising material deformation, material properties, object support, residual stress, mis-location of transformed material in the at least the portion of the 3D object, or cracking in the at least the portion of the 3D object. ([0136] “The apparatuses, systems, software and/or methods described herein may reduce the deformation of one or more layers or parts thereof within the 3D object (e.g., upon its formation and/or after its formation). The deformation may comprise bending, warping, arching, curving, twisting, balling, cracking, dislocating, or any combination thereof.”)
Regarding Claim 37, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Buller further teaches:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to utilize the simulation comprising a thermo-mechanics simulation or a fluid dynamics simulation. ([0297] “the control-model may comprise a thermal and/or mechanical (e.g., elastic and/or plastic) simulation. For example, the control-model may comprise thermo-mechanical (e.g., thermo-elastic and/or thermos-plastic) simulation.”)
Regarding Claim 49, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Buller further teaches:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive from the user: (i) characteristic of a transforming agent (i.e. beam power) utilized during the printing and (ii) geometry of the at least the portion of the 3D object. ([0296] “the controller receives three types of target inputs: (i) energy beam power 1310 (which may be user defined), (ii) temperature (e.g., 1305), and (iii) geometry (e.g., 1335).”)
Regarding Claim 50, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Buller further teaches:
wherein the at least one controller ([0302] “the controller comprises a processing unit. The processing unit may be central. The processing unit may comprise a central processing unit (herein “CPU”). The controller (e.g., comprising a computer system)”) is configured to receive data from the user via remote communication through a communication network. ([0306] “The user can access the computer system via the network.” [0303] “The network can be the Internet”)
Regarding Claim 51, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Buller further teaches:
wherein the at least one controller ([0302] “the controller comprises a processing unit. The processing unit may be central. The processing unit may comprise a central processing unit (herein “CPU”). The controller (e.g., comprising a computer system)”) is configured to receive data from the user via communication comprising (i) web based communication, (ii) wide-area network (WAN) communication, or (iii) local area network (LAN) communication. ([0306] “The user can access the computer system via the network.” [0303] “The network can be the Internet”)
Regarding Claim 52, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Buller further teaches:
A method of 3D printing, the method comprising: (a) providing the apparatus of claim 34, (see rejection of claim 34, supra) and (b) using the apparatus to print the 3D object. (see e.g. [0034] “(d) at least one controller that is operative coupled to the energy beam and to the second processor and is programmed to: direct the energy beam to transform at least a portion of a material bed according to the printing instruction to form the 3D object, wherein the 3D object is substantially similar to the requested 3D object.”)
Regarding Claim 53, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Buller further teaches:
Non-transitory computer readable program instructions that, when read by one or more processors operatively coupled to a transforming agent utilized in the printing, cause the one or more processors to execute one or more of (b), (c), and (d) of claim 34, the program instructions being inscribed on at least one non-transitory computer readable medium. ([0018] “In another aspect, a computer software product for 3D printing of at least one 3D object comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which program instructions are stored, which instructions, when read by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising: (a) direct an energy beam to transform at least a portion of a material bed to form the at least one 3D object; and (c) direct at least one controller that comprises a control-model that is related to a requested 3D object, to control in real time at least one characteristics of the energy beam using the altered model.” )
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller in view of DeMuth, further in view of Pickens, US Pg-Pub 2016/0092041.
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 35,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates: wherein the threshold value comprises a historical selection by the user, a historical selection by an average user, or a historical selection by a group of users.
However, Pickens teaches an additive manufacturing system ([0016] “[0016] System 10 may be configured such that users may upload (and/or system 10 may otherwise obtain) an electronic three-dimensional representation of the object that is to be manufactured.”) which simulates manufacturing of an object prior to actual production of the object ([0016] “System 10 may be configured such that as the virtual object is electronically subjected to various forces and/or conditions, it may respond based on the obtained representation of the object, the specified material properties, and/or other information.”) where threshold requirements for material properties ([0024] “Material property fields 204, 206, 208, and/or 210 are configured to facilitate entry and/or selection of specified values for four different material properties with fields 204, 206, 208, and/or 210 individually corresponding to different material properties. For example, first material property field 204 may correspond to hardness. Second material property field 206 may correspond to impact strength.”) of the object may be determined by historical selection by the user ([0005] “the material property component may be configured to determine a selectable range of values based on a user's previous entry and/or selection of a value for a different material property.”)
Pickens is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of additive manufacturing and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each receives a model of a 3D object to be produced by additive manufacturing, each simulates the production of the object in order to determine if the object will be produced successfully.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of the combination of Buller and DeMuth to include setting a requirement based on a historical selection by the user, as suggested by Pickens.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that requirements are feasible, as suggested by Pickens. ([0005] “ the material property component may be configured to, responsive to receiving an indication from the user that a specified value for a material property is outside the determined range of selectable values for that material property, recommend changes to values previously entered and/or selected by the user for other material properties”)
Claim(s) 38-40 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller in view of DeMuth, further in view of Eom et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0319087.
Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates receive from the user a decision as to which portion of the 3D object undergoes which simulation for a failure mode constituting an estimation of failure.
However, Eom teaches an additive manufacturing system (see fig. 1, including 3D printer 160) which simulates production of the model (fig. 1, simulation program 116c) which receives from the user a selection of a portion of the object ([0024] “the user 190 can specify a region of interest (ROI) 124 in UI 122 to mark a 3D region for estimating the physical properties of a portion of the 3D model contained within the ROI 124.”) to simulate for possible failures. ([0011] “Design cycle of 3D printed objects can be shortened by predicting possible failures of the 3D printed objects during design and modeling phase. Physical properties can be quickly estimated by simulating limited unit cell volumes.”)
Eom is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of additive manufacturing and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each receives a model of a 3D object to be produced by additive manufacturing, each simulates the production of the object in order to determine if the object will be produced successfully.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Buller and DeMuth to include enabling the user to select a portion of the object and a parameter to analyze as the region of interest for simulation, as suggested by Eom.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine if the physical properties of the region of interest match user requirements, as suggested by Eom ([0052] “A check is performed to determine 560 whether the estimated macroscale properties meet the user's requirements. In some implementations, the user 190 can provide the system 100 with one or more requirements on the microstructural properties or the macroscale properties of the 3D printed object at the ROI 124.”)
Regarding Claim 39 the combination of Buller, DeMuth, and Eom teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 38,
Eom further teaches:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive from the user a selection of a failure mode ([0032] “For example, the specified ROI 124 can be the load bearing neck region of the dragon figurine as shown, and the user 190 may want to estimate the macroscale stiffness of the region.”) from a suggested group of failure modes. ([0028] “Examples of mechanical properties to be simulated include elasticity, stiffness, flexibility, shear strength, tensile strength, yield strength, and specific weight.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Buller and DeMuth to include enabling the user to select a portion of the object and a parameter to analyze as the region of interest for simulation, as suggested by Eom.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine if the physical properties of the region of interest match user requirements, as suggested by Eom ([0052] “A check is performed to determine 560 whether the estimated macroscale properties meet the user's requirements. In some implementations, the user 190 can provide the system 100 with one or more requirements on the microstructural properties or the macroscale properties of the 3D printed object at the ROI 124.”)
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of Buller, DeMuth, and Eom teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 38,
Eom further teaches:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive designation of a portion of the at least the portion selected according to: (i) a selection by the user, (ii) a determination of support sufficiency of the portion, (iii) a complexity of a region of the portion, and/or (iv) historical data of the portion previously printed or an other portion similar to the portion, the other portion being previously printed. ([0024] “the user 190 can specify a region of interest (ROI) 124 in UI 122 to mark a 3D region for estimating the physical properties of a portion of the 3D model contained within the ROI 124.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Buller and DeMuth to include enabling the user to select a portion of the object and a parameter to analyze as the region of interest for simulation, as suggested by Eom.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine if the physical properties of the region of interest match user requirements, as suggested by Eom ([0052] “A check is performed to determine 560 whether the estimated macroscale properties meet the user's requirements. In some implementations, the user 190 can provide the system 100 with one or more requirements on the microstructural properties or the macroscale properties of the 3D printed object at the ROI 124.”)
Regarding Claim 45, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
neither reference clearly articulates receive from the user a request to alter at least one dimension of the at least the portion of the 3D object, and direct simulating and/or printing the 3D object based at least in part on the request to alter the at least one dimension.
However, Eom teaches an additive manufacturing system (see fig. 1, including 3D printer 160) which simulates production of the model (fig. 1, simulation program 116c) based on a region of interest ([0024] “the user 190 can specify a region of interest (ROI) 124 in UI 122 to mark a 3D region for estimating the physical properties of a portion of the 3D model contained within the ROI 124.”) including receiving from the user a request to alter at least one dimension of the at least the portion of the 3D object ([0025] “user inputs, such as moving or resizing the ROI 124, or modifying the 3D model 132.”) and re-simulates based on the alteration. ([0025] “Estimated values 125 of the physical properties pertaining to the ROI 124 are displayed in a physical properties window 126. In some implementations, the estimated values 125 can be updated at the request of the user 190. In some implementations, the estimated values 125 can be updated automatically based on various user inputs, such as moving or resizing the ROI 124, or modifying the 3D model 132.” )
Eom is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of additive manufacturing and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each receives a model of a 3D object to be produced by additive manufacturing, each simulates the production of the object in order to determine if the object will be produced successfully.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Buller and DeMuth to include enabling the user to select a portion of the object and a parameter to analyze as the region of interest for simulation, as suggested by Eom.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine if the physical properties of the region of interest match user requirements, as suggested by Eom ([0052] “A check is performed to determine 560 whether the estimated macroscale properties meet the user's requirements. In some implementations, the user 190 can provide the system 100 with one or more requirements on the microstructural properties or the macroscale properties of the 3D printed object at the ROI 124.”)
Claim(s) 41 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller in view of DeMuth, further in view of Brennan et al., US 8,996,342.
Regarding Claim 41, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates: wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive from the user a selection of a degree of complexity for the simulation.
However, Brennan teaches a technique for simulating the properties of a physical object (see figs. 6, 9 and Col 1., line 67 “receiving at least one selection by a user with respect to usage of a simpler model or a more complex model to be used to model at least one attribute of the physical object”) which includes receiving a user selection of a degree of complexity for the simulation. (fig. 9, 920; Col. 8, lines 65-67 “ the user can select various simple or complex models to use in the automatic variable fidelity simulation.” )
Brennan is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the same problem confronted by applicant of how to limit the maximum complexity of the physical property simulation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Buller and DeMuth to include allowing a user to select between models of varying complexity and accuracy, as suggested by Brennan.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to iterate simulations faster, as suggested by Brennan (Col. 8 line 56 “ the selection of the simpler model results in a faster running of the finite element model, and provides simulation results that can then be input to a more complex finite element model for a next iteration of the physical object simulation procedure.”)
Regarding Claim 44, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither of the references clearly articulates: receive from the user a request to refine the simulation of the at least the portion of the 3D object, and refine, or direct refinement, of the simulation according at least in part to the request by the user.
However, Brennan teaches a technique for simulating the properties of a physical object (see figs. 7, 9 and Col 1., line 67 “receiving at least one selection by a user with respect to usage of a simpler model or a more complex model to be used to model at least one attribute of the physical object”) which includes receiving a request from a user to refine the simulation (e.g. by updating a more complex model) (col. 8, line 1 “after completion of a simulation, user input is received regarding whether to use the just-completed simplified model results for a more complex model to be run in a next iteration.” ) and running the simulation based on the request (Col. 8, line 4 “If in step 775 it is determined to use the just-completed simplified model results for the more complex model to be run in the next iteration, then in step 785 the more-complex model simulation to be run next is modified based on information obtained from the just-completed simpler model simulation.”)
Brennan is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the same problem confronted by applicant of how to limit the maximum complexity of the physical property simulation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Buller and DeMuth to include allowing a user to select between models of varying complexity and accuracy, as suggested by Brennan.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to iterate simulations faster, as suggested by Brennan (Col. 8 line 56 “ the selection of the simpler model results in a faster running of the finite element model, and provides simulation results that can then be input to a more complex finite element model for a next iteration of the physical object simulation procedure.”)
Claim(s) 42-43 and 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller in view of DeMuth, further in view of Bennett et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0203515.
Regarding Claim 42, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Buller differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates receive from the user a selection of a printing resolution of the at least the portion of the 3D object.
However, Bennett teaches a 3D printing system which receives from the user a selection of a print resolution of the 3D object ([0050] “Procedure 500 may begin at operation 502, where a height configuration parameter including a selection of a 3D print resolution and/or a specified layer height may be received, for example, via a user interface associated with or provided by the slicer 165.”)
Bennett is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of additive manufacturing and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each receives a model of a 3D object to be produced by additive manufacturing, each produced the 3D object following generation of print instructions.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of the combination of Buller and DeMuth to include receiving a user specified print resolution, as suggested by Bennett.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the user to modify the total printing time, as suggested by Bennett ([0040] “In some cases, higher resolution may result in a longer print time, whereas lower resolution may result in a faster print time. In some aspects, a maximum print time may be selected, for example, by a user, to limit or otherwise bound the maximum print resolution used.” )
Regarding Claim 43, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates: receive from the user a selection of a printing speed for the at least the portion of the 3D object.
However, Bennett teaches a 3D printing system which receives from the user a selection of a print speed for 3D object ([0045] “one or more selections of subsets of layers having a corresponding tolerance or required accuracy, one or more tolerance or accuracy requirements, a maximum print time or minimum print speed”)
Bennett is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of additive manufacturing and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each receives a model of a 3D object to be produced by additive manufacturing, each produced the 3D object following generation of print instructions.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of the combination of Buller and DeMuth to include receiving a user specified print resolution, as suggested by Bennett.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the user to modify the total printing time, as suggested by Bennett ([0044] “user for selection of various options that affect the quality of the printed object, the speed with which it will print, and other user-selectable relevant parameters.”)
Regarding Claim 46, the combination of Buller and DeMuth teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates: receive from the user a selection of a process of the printing.
However, Bennett teaches a 3D printing system which receives from the user a selection of a print speed for 3D object ([0045] “one or more selections of subsets of layers having a corresponding tolerance or required accuracy, one or more tolerance or accuracy requirements, a maximum print time or minimum print speed”). Examiner notes for clarity of the record that “selection of a process of the printing” has been interpreted to include at least, “a rate of formation of the object”, i.e. print speed. (see Claim 47, infra.)
Bennett is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of additive manufacturing and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each receives a model of a 3D object to be produced by additive manufacturing, each produced the 3D object following generation of print instructions.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of the combination of Buller and DeMuth to include receiving a user specified print speed, as suggested by Bennett.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the user to modify the total printing time, as suggested by Bennett ([0044] “user for selection of various options that affect the quality of the printed object, the speed with which it will print, and other user-selectable relevant parameters.”)
Regarding Claim 47, the combination of Buller, DeMuth, and Bennett teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 46,
Bennett further teaches:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive from the user a selection of the process of the printing suggested to the user based at least in part on (i) a curvature of the at least the portion of the 3D object, (ii) an angle of the at least the portion of the 3D object, (iii) a material property of the at least the portion of the 3D object, (iv) a rate of formation of the at least the portion of the 3D object, and/or (v) a surface property of the at least the portion of the 3D object. ([0045] “one or more selections of subsets of layers having a corresponding tolerance or required accuracy, one or more tolerance or accuracy requirements, a maximum print time or minimum print speed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of the combination of Buller and DeMuth to include receiving a user specified print speed, as suggested by Bennett.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the user to modify the total printing time, as suggested by Bennett ([0044] “user for selection of various options that affect the quality of the printed object, the speed with which it will print, and other user-selectable relevant parameters.”)
Regarding Claim 48, the combination of Buller, DeMuth, and Bennett teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 46,
Bennett further teaches:
wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive from the user a selection of a process of the printing selected from (a) a historical selection of the process preferred by the user, (b) a historical selection of the process preferred by an average user, or (c) a historical selection of the process preferred by a group of users. ([0069] “ In some instances, machine learning may be used at least in part to modify biases applied to the selection algorithm, such that certain error ranges may be acceptable to a specific user or specific 3D printer, but not to other users or printers. In this scenario, the factors X and Y may be selected or modified according to tracked and aggregated user preferences/selections.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the number of steps required to configure 3D modeling/3D printing of an object, as suggested by Bennett. ([0070] “in this scenario, the 3D modeling application or UI may automatically indicate or suggest which z-axis features to preserve or associate with a higher or specific tolerance or accuracy, based on historic user selection data/the training data, thus reducing the steps required by a user to configure 3D modeling/printing of an object.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lappas et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0093418 – commonly assigned at time of filing;
Czinger et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0343984 – cited for disclosing use of a historical database for storing simulation parameters. (see [0093]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119