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 Status
Claims 16-19, 23, 25, and 27-35 have been amended. Claims 57-61 have been added. Claims 1-15, 20-22, 24, 26, and 36-56 were canceled. Claims 16-19, 23, 25, 27-35, and 57-61 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract of the disclosure is objected because it contains is 47 words.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16, 23, 25, and 60-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US20190084239A1 -hereinafter Carlson) in view of Hunter et al. (US9503613B1 -hereinafter Hunter).
Regarding Claim 16, Carlson teaches:
An apparatus for calibration in printing at least one three-dimensional object (see [0077]; Carlson: “A method of providing nozzle calibration parameters for a 3D printer.”), the apparatus comprising one or more controllers configured to: (see Fig. 1A; Carlson: “control unit 340.”)
(a) …and operationally couple to (i) a guidance system (see [0106]; Carlson: “System 110”), (ii) a sensor (see [0095]; Carlson: “a temperature control unit (e.g., a temperature sensor and/or a heating device), and a material level sensor”), and (iii) a mechanism comprising a planarizer or a remover (see [0131]; Carlson: “one or more leveling devices 32 which can be manufactured as a roller or a blade.”),
(b) direct the guidance system to guide a transforming agent along a target surface to print a calibration mark (see [0102]; Carlson: “The dispensing head and radiation source are preferably mounted in a frame or block 128 which is preferably operative to reciprocally move over a tray 360, which serves as the working surface.” See [0159]; Carlson: “In FIG. 7 the calibration drop or pattern is printed, but it needs to be found by the image processing system in order to be measured. In order to reduce the search area, a pointer or indicator is printed 490 alongside the calibration drop, and then the image processing knows 500 where to look for the drop.”), the target surface being supported by a platform supporting the at least one three- dimensional object during its printing; (see [0104]; Carlson: “Once the layer is completed, tray 360 is lowered in the Z direction to a predetermined Z level, according to the desired thickness of the layer subsequently to be printed. The procedure is repeated to form three-dimensional object 112 in a layerwise manner.”)
(c) direct the sensor to sense the calibration mark and generate at least one signal; (see [0162]; Carlson: “Once printed, the positions of the drops are measured using a reference frame provided with a printed transparency, or may be measured using an appropriate measuring device.”)
and (e) direct the guidance system to guide the transforming agent to print the at least one three-dimensional object. (see [0104]; Carlson: “Once the layer is completed, tray 360 is lowered in the Z direction to a predetermined Z level, according to the desired thickness of the layer subsequently to be printed. The procedure is repeated to form three-dimensional object 112 in a layerwise manner.”)
However, Carlson does not explicitly teach: (a) couple to a power source… optionally wherein the power source comprises an electrical power source; (d) direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark;
Hunter from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
(a) couple to a power source…optionally wherein the power source comprises an electrical power source; (see column 7, lines 59-64; Hunter: “Thus, as shown in FIG. 12, a body housing has one or more functional components that operate on power supplied from an alternating current (AC) source 220 by the power supply 218. The power supply 218 can comprise a common power conversion unit, power storage element (e.g., a battery, etc), etc.”)
(d) direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark; (see column 2, lines 26-29; Hunter: “The marking device then reprints the same markings directly on the initial printed marks a second time on the item in a second printing pass using the corrected locations for the markings.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson to include Hunter’s features of coupling to a power source, optionally wherein the power source comprises an electrical power source; and directing the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark. Doing so would increase accuracy and correct for machine drift, environmental drift, and difference due to image content. (Hunter, column 5, line 24 and lines 40-41)
Regarding Claim 23, the combination Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, Carlson further teaches wherein the calibration mark is a first partial calibration mark (see [0024]; Carlson: “printing a calibration drop from a nozzle being calibrated;”) [A calibration drop reads on ‘a first partial calibration mark’], the guidance system is a first guidance system (see [0106]; Carlson: “System 110”), and the transforming agent is a first transforming agent (see [0102]; Carlson: “The dispensing head and radiation source”): and wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to operationally couple to a second guidance system (see [0026]; Carlson: “An embodiment may provide for printing a first, arc, calibration pattern using one nozzle of a given printing head at a plurality of rotation angles of a printing platter and a single radial position of a printing block, thereby to form a pattern of drops expected to belong to a circular arc which center determines a center of rotation of the printing platter,”), and to direct the second guidance system to guide a second transforming agent along the target surface to form a second partial calibration mark (see [0025]; Carlson: “printing an indicator near the calibration drop to enable the calibration drop to be detected.”) [A indicator reads on ‘a second partial calibration mark’], the first transforming agent and the second transforming agent being utilized at least in part to print the at least one three-dimensional object. (see [0183]; Carlson: “The calibration procedure may require several tens of pixels to be fired by every nozzle of every head.” See [0129]: “Generally, controller 20 controls printing heads 16 to dispense, during the rotation of tray 12, droplets of building material in layers, such as to print a three-dimensional object on tray 12.”)
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, Carlson further teaches wherein the calibration mark is a first partial calibration mark (see [0159]; Carlson: “In FIG. 7 the calibration drop or pattern is printed”) [A calibration drop reads on ‘a first partial calibration mark’], and wherein before printing the at least one three-dimensional object, the one or more controllers are configured to direct print a second partial calibration mark that occupies a second area (see [0159]; Carlson: “”In order to reduce the search area, a pointer or indicator is printed 490 alongside the calibration drop, and then the image processing knows 500 where to look for the drop.) [A pointer/indicator reads on ‘a second partial calibration mark’], the second area comprising at least one contact point with a first area occupied by the first partial calibration mark. (see [0159]; Carlson: “FIG. 8A shows a schematic of a calibration drop 510 alongside an indicator or auxiliary mark 520, here in the form of an arrow.”) [A calibration drop reads on ‘a first partial calibration mark’]
Regarding Claim 60, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Carlson and Hunter as discussed connection with claim 16.
Regarding Claim 61, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Carlson and Hunter as discussed connection with claim 16.
Claim(s)17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Domrose et al. (US20180370146A1 -hereinafter Domrose).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the transforming agent is an optical energy beam and wherein the guidance system comprises an optical system.
Domrose from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the transforming agent is an optical energy beam (see [0034]; Domrose: “Each of the beams 122, 222 generated by the radiation sources 121, 221, for example laser sources, are deflected by a deflecting device 123, 223 and focused by way of one of the focusing devices 124, 224 via the coupling window 25 onto the build area 8 in the working plane 7.”) and wherein the guidance system comprises an optical system. (see [0034]; Domrose: “The apparatus 1 further comprises a solidification device 19 with two irradiation devices 120, 220.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Domrose’s features of the transforming agent is an optical energy beam and wherein the guidance system comprises an optical system. Doing so would manufacture the three-dimensional object with high (increased) dimensional accuracy. (Domrose, [0010])
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the target surface comprises an exposed surface of a first material bed, and wherein the at least one three-dimensional object is printed from the first material bed or from a second material bed similar to the first material bed; and optionally wherein the sensor comprises (a) a charge-coupled device (CCD), (b) a line scan sensor, (c) a camera, (d) a single pixel detector, and/or (e) a spectrometer.
Domrose from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the target surface comprises an exposed surface of a first material bed (see [0033]; Domrose: “a build area 8 in the working plane 7”), and wherein the at least one three-dimensional object is printed from the first material bed or from a second material bed similar to the first material bed (see [0032]; Domrose: “In FIG. 1, the object 2 to be formed on the building platform in the container 5 below a working plane 7 is shown in an intermediate state. It consists of a plurality of solidified layers and is surrounded by non-solidified building material 13.”); and optionally wherein the sensor comprises (a) a charge-coupled device (CCD), (b) a line scan sensor, (c) a camera (see [0019]; Domrose: “a light-sensitive camera”), (d) a single pixel detector, and/or (e) a spectrometer.
The same motivation to combine Carlson, Hunter, and Domrose a set forth for Claim 17 equally applies to Claim 18.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of McNestry et al. (US20200001635A1 -hereinafter McNestry).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the mechanism comprises an attractive force.
McNestry from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the mechanism comprises an attractive force. (see [0008]; McNestry: “The attractive magnetic force may be configured to urge the printhead away from the printing surface.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include McNestry’s features of the mechanism comprises an attractive force. Doing so would gradually improve the system performance. (McNestry, [0079])
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Verschuuren et al. (US20090314414A1 -hereinafter Verschuuren).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 25 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more controllers are configured to print the second partial calibration mark that occupies the second area to overlap at least a portion of the first area occupied by the first partial calibration mark, to form an overlapped area.
Verschuuren from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more controllers are configured to print the second partial calibration mark that occupies the second area to overlap at least a portion of the first area occupied by the first partial calibration mark, to form an overlapped area. (see [0023]; Verschuuren: “In a variation of the previous embodiment the lateral misalignment is determined from detection of an optical intensity pattern formed by a first alignment marker present within the flexible sheet and a second alignment marker present within at least one of the first element and the anchor, the second alignment marker at least partly overlapping laterally with the first alignment marker.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Verschuuren’s features of the one or more controllers are configured to print the second partial calibration mark that occupies the second area to overlap at least a portion of the first area occupied by the first partial calibration mark, to form an overlapped area. Doing so would increase accuracy and reproducibility of forming the contact significantly. (Verschuuren, [0013])
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Halmilton (US20200364826A1 -hereinafter Halmilton).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the calibration mark is printed on an exposed surface of a material bed from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed at least in part by the transforming agent.
Hamilton from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the calibration mark is printed on an exposed surface of a material bed from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed at least in part by the transforming agent. (see [0028]; Hamilton: “The alignment makers may be added by the DPS 100 during printing, while determining the shape and size of the designated region, during another period in which the region or material sheet is altered,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Hamilton’s features of the calibration mark is printed on an exposed surface of a material bed from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed at least in part by the transforming agent. Doing so would enhance manufacturing flexibility and customization. (Hamilton, [0003])
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Cooper (US20090051935A1 -hereinafter Cooper).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the target surface comprises an exposed surface of an enclosure in which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed at least in part by the transforming agent.
Cooper from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the target surface comprises an exposed surface of an enclosure in which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed at least in part by the transforming agent. (see [0007]; Cooper: “The builds are usually prepared on surfaces referred to as “build pads” or “build platforms,” which can be raised or lowered to place the surface of a build into contact with the actinic radiation and the “working surface” or “build plane” or “image plane” where the build material is exposed.” See [0079]: “Because solid-imaging systems 10 often include a relatively large build plane 23, mirror-based optical system 25 must dynamically focus laser beam 26 as it traverses the build plane.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Cooper’s features of the target surface comprises an exposed surface of an enclosure in which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed at least in part by the transforming agent. Doing so would make the process more efficient and less costly. (Cooper, [0008])
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the calibration mark is printed at least in part in a processing field of the guidance system.
Cooper from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the calibration mark is printed at least in part in a processing field of the guidance system. (see [0055]; Cooper: “The fiducial marks are associated with the surface of the substrate by being positioned on, in, within, or otherwise connected or proximate to the surface of the substrate.”)
The same motivation to combine Carlson, Hunter, and Cooper a set forth for Claim 29 equally applies to Claim 30.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Carlson, Hunter, and Cooper teaches all the limitations of claim 30 above, Cooper further teaches wherein the target surface comprises a build region for printing the at least one three-dimensional object, and wherein the processing field overlaps at least a portion of the build region. (see [0036]-[0037]; Cooper: “A portion of this new liquid is, in turn, converted to solid material by actinic light 26 from laser spot 27, and the new material adhesively connects to the material below it. As the device operates, it produces the three-dimensional object 50 by step-wise buildup of integrated layers (laminae) 52. This process is continued until the entire three-dimensional object 50 is built upon platform surface 43.” See [0054]: “fiducial marks 156 are about the same size as laser spot 27.”)
The same motivation to combine Carlson, Hunter, and Cooper a set forth for Claim 29 equally applies to Claim 31.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Kumar et al. (US20190302570A1 -hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, Hunter further teaches wherein the one or more controllers comprise a closed loop control scheme comprising a feedback control scheme (see column 6, lines 41-44; Hunter: “Subsequently, as shown by the arrow looping back to item 102, further additional printing passes (e.g., third, fourth, etc.) can be performed until the desired affect is achieved.”), the closed loop control scheme considering at least one signal from the sensor (see column 5, last paragraph; Hunter: “In item 102 in FIG. 4 (and FIG. 7) such methods further scan the item 150 after the first printing pass using a scanning device 232 of the printing apparatus”),
However, it does not explicitly teach and wherein the at least one signal comprises a sensed property of the calibration mark, the sensed property being of a material of the calibration mark with respect to an adjacent material, the sensed property comprising (A) a luminance, (B) a reflectivity, (C) a specularity, (D) a wavelength, or (E) a contrast.
Kumar from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches and wherein the at least one signal comprises a sensed property of the calibration mark (see [0032]; Kumar: “a sensor operable to detect radiation diffracted/scattered by the alignment mark and to output a signal containing information related to a position of the alignment mark.”), the sensed property being of a material of the calibration mark with respect to an adjacent material (see [0101]; Kumar: “The same process at coarser and/or finer levels may be repeated at different wavelengths for increased accuracy and/or for robust detection of the alignment mark irrespective of the materials from which the alignment mark is made.”), the sensed property comprising (A) a luminance, (B) a reflectivity, (C) a specularity, (D) a wavelength (see [0097]; Kumar: “The alignment sensor AS (shown in FIG. 1) scans each alignment mark optically with a spot 206 (X direction), 208 (Y direction) of radiation, to obtain a periodically-varying signal, such as a sine wave …and the alignment sensor AS uses a wavelength of radiation (or usually plural wavelengths) much longer than the exposure radiation to be used for applying patterns to the substrate.”), or (E) a contrast.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Kumar’s features of the at least one signal comprises a sensed property of the calibration mark, the sensed property being of a material of the calibration mark with respect to an adjacent material, the sensed property comprising a wavelength. Doing so would provide more accurate position measurements. (Kumar, [0005])
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Katsumata (US20050212842A1 -hereinafter Katsumata).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly wherein the one or more controllers are configured to consider the at least one signal wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the guidance system to guide the transforming agent in (b), and to direct the sensor to sense the calibration mark in (c), at least until a threshold value of a sensed property of the calibration mark is sensed by the sensor.
Katsumata from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more controllers are configured to consider the at least one signal wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the guidance system to guide the transforming agent in (b) (see Abstract; Katsumata: “A printed state detecting mark, made up of a printed area and a non-printed area, is printed on an object and illuminated with light.”), and to direct the sensor to sense the calibration mark in (c) (see Abstract; Katsumata: “Light, which is reflected from or transmitted through the printed state detecting mark, is detected by a first sensor and a second sensor.”), at least until a threshold value of a sensed property of the calibration mark is sensed by the sensor. (see Abstract; Katsumata: “A first detected amount of light detected by the first sensor is compared with a predetermined first threshold level to produce a first comparison result, and a second detected amount of light detected by the second sensor is compared with a predetermined second threshold level to produce a second comparison result.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Katsumata’s features of considering the at least one signal wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the guidance system to guide the transforming agent in (b), and to direct the sensor to sense the calibration mark in (c), at least until a threshold value of a sensed property of the calibration mark is sensed by the sensor. Doing so would easily detect the printed state of a mark that has been printed on an object by a printing device. (Katsumata, [0007])
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Kochi et al. (US20050122400A1 -hereinafter Kochi).
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark in (d) upon reaching a threshold value of a sensed property of the calibration mark being sensed by the sensor.
Kochi from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark in (d) upon reaching a threshold value of a sensed property of the calibration mark being sensed by the sensor. (see [0148]; Kochi: “The calculating section 7 has a threshold value of the successive approximation method and removes the second marks on the three-dimensional-field 70 for calibration whose error is not smaller than the threshold value to obtain precise calibration correction coefficient.” See [0103]: “The precise mark position measuring section 6 recognizes the second marks on the paired images for calibration.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Kochi’s features of the one or more controllers consider the at least one signal, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark in (d) following reaching a threshold value of a sensed property of the calibration mark as sensed by the sensor. Doing so would accurately perform correction of the image signal distortion based on the calibration data. (Kochi, [0011])
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly wherein the one or more controllers consider the at least one signal, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark in (d) following reaching a threshold value of a sensed property of the calibration mark as sensed by the sensor.
Kochi from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more controllers consider the at least one signal (see Abstract; Kochi: “an image correction section 50 for receiving an image signal from the photoreceptor section 30, and for performing distortion correction of the information signal based on a predetermined calibration parameter corresponding to the photographic parameter detected at the photographic parameter detecting section 20.”), wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark in (d) following reaching a threshold value of a sensed property of the calibration mark as sensed by the sensor. (see [0148]; Kochi: “The calculating section 7 has a threshold value of the successive approximation method and removes the second marks on the three-dimensional-field 70 for calibration whose error is not smaller than the threshold value to obtain precise calibration correction coefficient.” See [0103]: “The precise mark position measuring section 6 recognizes the second marks on the paired images for calibration.”)
The same motivation to combine Carlson, Hunter, and Kochi a set forth for Claim 34 equally applies to Claim 35.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Roeck et al. (US20160101633A1 -hereinafter Roeck).
Regarding Claim 57, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 19 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the attractive force comprises a vacuum force, and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark at least in part by direct removal of the calibration mark from the target surface; and optionally wherein the mechanism is utilized during printing of the at least one three-dimensional object.
Roeck from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the attractive force comprises a vacuum force (see [0083]; Roeck: “A forcing mean of a belt gripper (60, 61, 62, 63) in the embodiment of the belt step conveyor system is applying a force on the conveyor belt (1). This force may be a hydraulic force, friction, vacuum force, electromagnetic force and/or mechanical force.”), and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark at least in part by direct removal of the calibration mark from the target surface (see [0037]; Roeck: “FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the belt step conveyor system as in FIG. 2 wherein a laser system (46) with one or more beams of laser light marks the surface on the load (4) by removing part of the load (4) to mark a pattern on the surface of the load (4).”); and optionally wherein the mechanism is utilized during printing of the at least one three-dimensional object. (see [0074]; Roeck: “The marking device may be used to create objects on the conveyor belt (1) through a sequential layering process, also called additive manufacturing or 3D printing. The objects that are manufactured additively can be used anywhere throughout the product life cycle, from pre-production (i.e. rapid prototyping) to full-scale production (i.e. rapid manufacturing), in addition to tooling applications and post-production customization.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Roeck’s features of the attractive force comprises a vacuum force, and wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct the mechanism to disrupt the calibration mark at least in part by direct removal of the calibration mark from the target surface; and optionally wherein the mechanism is utilized during printing of the at least one three-dimensional object. Doing so would achieve high accurate successive distance movements to have the availability to manipulate or check the load on accurate positions between or during the successive distance movements. (Roeck, [0003])
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Davidson et al. (US20080006334A1 -hereinafter Davidson).
Regarding Claim 58, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct maintenance of an internal atmosphere in an enclosure having a positive pressure as compared to an ambient pressure external to the enclosure in which the calibration mark is printed during the printing; and optionally wherein the at least one three-dimensional object is printed in the internal atmosphere having the positive pressure.
Davidson from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more controllers are configured to direct maintenance of an internal atmosphere in an enclosure having a positive pressure as compared to an ambient pressure external to the enclosure in which the calibration mark is printed during the printing; (see [0125]; Davidson: “Valves in the plenum may isolate one or more filter segments from the airflow, and instead expose the “clean” side of the filter to higher pressure air, such as from the atmosphere or other pressure source. This higher pressure air may be at the ambient pressure of the surrounding atmosphere, or be at any positive pressure (i.e., any pressure greater than that within the powder handling system 100). This positive/higher pressure may be created by simply opening a valve to the atmosphere, or by opening a valve to a separate air flow source.”) and optionally wherein the at least one three-dimensional object is printed in the internal atmosphere having the positive pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Davidson’s features of the one or more controllers are configured to direct maintenance of an internal atmosphere in an enclosure having a positive pressure as compared to an ambient pressure external to the enclosure in which the calibration mark is printed during the printing. Doing so would automatically handle powder throughout a 3D printer system to reduce waste and minimize contamination of the system and surrounding area from loose powder. (Davidson, [0006])
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Hunter in view of Palmer et al. (US20170024925A1 -hereinafter Palmer).
Regarding Claim 59, the combination of Carlson and Hunter teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein during printing of the at least one three-dimensional object, the sensor is utilized to generate a topographical image (a) of the target surface and/or (b) of an exposed surface of a material bed from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed.
Palmer from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein during printing of the at least one three-dimensional object (see [0051]; Palmer: “The three-dimensional printer 208 may be configured to fabricate an object such as an object having one or more one or more textures, colors, topographies, surface finishes, and so on, including one or more surface features as contemplated herein.”), the sensor is utilized to generate a topographical image (a) of the target surface and/or (b) of an exposed surface of a material bed from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed. (see [0040]; Palmer: “the scanner acts as a “three-dimensional mouse” or a “digital spray-paint can” that provides a user with a simplistic way in which to capture surface topography and two-dimensional features (e.g., images and color), and then apply these features to digital objects.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Carlson and Hunter to include Palmer’s features of during printing of the at least one three-dimensional object, the sensor is utilized to generate a topographical image (a) of the target surface and/or (b) of an exposed surface of a material bed from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed. Doing so would provide a user with a simple and intuitive way in which to capture physical surface textures and apply them to digital objects. (Palmer, [0003])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chong et al. (US20170090461A1) discloses calibrating a three-dimensional printer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117