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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/228,033 has claims 1-20 pending.
Priority / Filing Date
Applicant did not claim for any domestic or foreign priority. The effective filing date of this application is July 31, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated July 31,2023 and January 6,2025 are acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
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 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 8-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McCarthy et al. hereafter McCarthy (EP Pub. No EP 3 944 952 A1), in view of Raghavan et al. hereafter Raghavan (Pub. No.: US 2020/0410060 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, McCarthy discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, that when executed by a computer processor, cause the computer processor to perform a method (McCarthy: Figure 1, [0024]: control system 124 includes at least one processor 126 and at least one memory device 128. Processor 126 executes executable 45 instructions to control the operation of additive manufacturing system 100) comprising:
obtaining a model defining a geometry of a component for manufacturing using an additive manufacturing system (McCarthy: Figure 1, [0024]: Control system 124 may include, for example, a 3D model of component 102 to be fabricated by additive manufacturing system 100);
discretizing the geometry of the component into a plurality of voxels, each voxel representing a volumetric portion of the component (McCarthy: Figure 2, [0021], [0037]: In the exemplary embodiment, elements 204 are three-dimensional voxels that constitute the volume of model 200);
identifying one or more voxels of the plurality of voxels having a value of stress greater than a threshold value (McCarthy: Figure 2, [0038]: The build characteristic contribution map indicates the effect of elements 204 on a build characteristic of region of interest 206 of component 202; Figure 3, [0039], [0040]: the build characteristic profile is a stress profile of component 202 and region of interest 206 is an area having a stress which is greater than a threshold value);
determining one or more regions of the component contributing to the identified one or more voxels having the value of stress greater than the threshold value through a build process simulation configured to iteratively simulate modifications to voxels of the component so that the value of stress of the identified one or more voxels is reduced (McCarthy: Figure 2, Figure 3, [0039], [0040]: the build characteristic profile is a stress profile of component 202 and region of interest 206 is an area having a stress which is greater than a threshold value; Figure 8, Figure 9, [0051]-0053]: Multiple possible scan strategies; FIG. 9 includes an X-axis indicating ratios of selected elements (or sets of elements i.e. Voxels) to the total number of elements, and a Y-axis indicating stress reduction as a percentage of a total stress reduction opportunity);
modifying the geometry of the one or more regions of the component (McCarthy: [0027]: The geometry of component 102 is sliced into a stack of layers of a desired thickness, such that the geometry of each layer is an outline of the cross-section through component 102 at that particular layer location. Scan paths are generated across the geometry of a respective layer. The build parameters are applied along each scan path to fabricate that layer of component 102 from particulate 110 used to construct component 102),
and
storing an updated model of the component incorporating the modifications to the geometry (McCarthy: [0034]: The adjusted build parameter may be stored in the build file of component 102 and/or control system 124 may store the build parameters separate from the build file and retrieve the adjusted parameters during operation of additive manufacturing system 100).
McCarthy does not explicitly disclose
wherein modifying the geometry comprises:
when the geometry corresponds to a bulk structure, replacing the bulk structure with a first lattice structure configured to modify the value of stress associated with the identified one or more voxels of the component, and
when the geometry corresponds to a lattice structure, adjusting a parameter of the lattice structure to modify the value of stress associated with the identified one or more voxels of the component.
Raghavan discloses:
wherein modifying the geometry comprises:
when the geometry corresponds to a bulk structure, replacing the bulk structure with a first lattice structure configured to modify the value of stress associated with the identified one or more voxels of the component, and
when the geometry corresponds to a lattice structure, adjusting a parameter of the lattice structure to modify the value of stress associated with the identified one or more voxels of the component (Raghavan: Figs. 5-8 and [0042]-[0044] show a part comprising a support structure that is optimized from being a bulk structure (Fig.5);
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
modified into a first lattice structure (Fig,6) into a second (Fig,7) and third (Fig.8)
lattice structure by topological optimization,
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reduces distortion by regarding both thermal stresses and structural stresses loads, [0028]: “…..For example, in the instance structural loads are considered, then a structural support structure might also be determined at operation 220 that operates to counteract distortions due to mechanical loads induced on the part during the AM build process ....”;
[0029]: "In some aspects, the structural and/or thermal support structures may be designed with an optimum thermal conductivity, stiffness and other properties to counteract the thermally-induced, mechanical force-induced, and other types of induced distortions, without imposing additional constraints or introducing additional distortions or changes into the part in their attempt to reduce or eliminate one or more types of predicted distortions.”).
McCarthy and Raghavan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to additive manufacturing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above AM build characteristics contribution profile application, as taught by McCarthy, and incorporating the use of material distribution optimization mechanism, as taught by Raghavan.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to optimally reducing a thermal gradient in the part with a minimum of material and results in the generation of an optimized AM support structure, as suggested by Raghavan (Raghavan: abstract).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of McCarthy and Raghavan further disclose the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises designating at least one voxel of the plurality of voxels as a voxel that cannot be modified (McCarthy: [0021]).
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of McCarthy and Raghavan further disclose the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises selecting the first lattice structure to replace the bulk structure from a library of lattice structures based on a difference between the value of stress associated with the voxel and the threshold value (Raghavan: [0025], [0027], [0028]: displacement distribution in the part as determined at operation 210 may be applied as a boundary condition on a support design space to determine a temperature distribution throughout the support design space……where one or more additional types of loads are determined at operation 210 and applied at operation 215, then other types of supports in addition to the thermal supports structure may be determined in combination at operation 220).
Motivation to combine McCarthy and Raghavan is same here s Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 12 and 20, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 3 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of McCarthy and Raghavan further disclose the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the parameter of the lattice structure adjusted to modify the value of stress comprises at least one of a size, a shape, a percentage volume fraction, or a strut size (McCarthy: [0034], [0037]).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 8, the combinations of McCarthy and Raghavan further disclose the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises causing the additive manufacturing system to manufacture the component based on the updated model of the component (McCarthy: [0028], [0059]).
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 8 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 9, the combinations of McCarthy and Raghavan further disclose the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises executing a validation process of the updated model of the component, wherein the validation process comprises confirming that the component manufactured based on the updated model meets specified design parameters (McCarthy: [0008], [0021], [0059]).
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 9 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 5-7 and 14-16 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.
None of prior art of record teaches at least:
a) selecting one or more voxels adjacent to a select one of the identified one or more voxels wherein the value of stress is greater than the threshold value; and
modifying the geometry of the volumetric portion of the selected one or more adjacent voxels based on (1) the first lattice structure replacing the bulk structure of the select one of the identified one or more voxels or (2) the parameter of the lattice structure being adjusted in the select one of the identified one or more voxels. (claims 5 and 14)
b) analyzing stress within the component under a simulated build process executed by the additive manufacturing system to determine the value of stress for each of the plurality of voxels, wherein analyzing stress within the component under the simulated build process executed by the additive manufacturing system further comprises:
determining a presence of a distortion in a layer of the component during the simulated build process resulting from stress within the component, wherein the presence of the distortion comprises a protrusion of the component above a build plane;
identifying one or more voxels corresponding to the protrusion of the component above the build plane; and
modifying the geometry of the volumetric portion of the one or more voxels corresponding to the protrusion by replacing the volumetric portion with a selected lattice structure. (claims 6 and 15)
c) analyzing stress within the component under a simulated build process executed by the additive manufacturing system to determine the value of stress for each of the plurality of voxels, wherein analyzing stress within the component under the simulated build process executed by the additive manufacturing system further comprises determining a type of stress causing strain associated with the component, and wherein
modifying the geometry further comprises:
when the geometry corresponds to the bulk structure, selecting the first lattice
structure to replace the bulk structure based on the type of stress causing the strain, and
when the geometry corresponds to the lattice structure, selecting the parameter
of the lattice structure to adjust based on the type of stress causing the strain. (claims 7 and 16)
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stoner et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0391290 A1) teaches a method of creating a functionally-graded multi-material (FGM) part in multi-material additive manufacturing includes providing a part digitized into voxels, generating a lattice structure having a series of repeating unit cells, where each is the smallest nonrepeating constituent of the lattice structure and is generated by a continuous surface defined by a continuous function.
Musuvathy et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0190971 A1) teaches methods for structure preserving topology optimization of lattice structures for additive manufacturing. A method includes receiving an initial lattice model, a physical objective of the initial lattice model to be optimized and performing an additive topology optimization on the initial lattice model to create the optimized lattice model until the initial volume ratio satisfies the optimal volume ratio, and storing the optimized lattice model.
Rai et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0216683 A1) conceptually presents a method of additively manufacturing a 3D structure, comprising defining a boundary conditions, load constraints, and a periodic cell structure for lattifying the 3D structure; providing a surrogate FE model predicting a relationship between the boundary conditions, load constraints, periodic cell structure, and 3D orientation angle of the periodic cell structure.
Richard Neill (Pub. No.: US 2021/0229091 A1) defines an assembly of additive manufactured component voxels, each additive manufactured component voxel exhibiting a corresponding functionality. Each additive manufactured component voxel includes a base layer; an outer layer, an interior space of the component voxel being defined in a volume adjacent to the base layer and the outer layer; and a component structure associated with the functionality of the component voxel.
7. Examiner’s Remarks: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights