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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 18, 19 are allowed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. WO 2020/246993 (hereinafter Zeng) in view of Ferrar et al. US 2021/0162509 (hereinafter Ferrar).
Regarding claim 11, Zeng teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
determine a first impact of a first environmental factor that will cause degradation of powder at a voxel of a three-dimensional print volume due to printing a particular build ([0032] - - temperature is a first impact);
determine a second impact of a second environmental factor that will cause degradation of the powder at the voxel of the three-dimensional print volume due to printing the particular build ([0032], [0033] - - heat generation due to a voxel’s exposure to an optical energy source is a second impact); and
determine an amount of degradation of the powder at the voxel based on the initial amount of powder degradation, the first impact, and the second impact ([0022], [0023] - - determining material properties e.g. elasticity; elasticity indicates an amount of degradation; simulate transient thermal behavior over time, thus the initial condition is considered).
But Zeng does not explicitly teach: determine an initial amount of powder degradation prior to printing, based on an initial color of the powder.
However, Ferrar teaches determine an initial amount of powder degradation prior to printing, based on an initial color of the powder ([0034] - - overall color of an image of the powder indicates the degree of oxidation of the powder).
Zeng and Ferrar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above medium, as taught by Zeng, and incorporating determining powder degradation based on color, as taught by Ferrar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to determining powder condition in a non-destructive way and determine if the powder may be re-used, as suggested by Ferrar ([0012]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zeng and Ferrar teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Zeng further teaches: use a first model to represent interactions between the first environmental factor and the powder at the voxel to determine the first impact and to use a second model to represent interactions between the first environmental factor and the powder at the voxel to determine a third impact ([0032]-[0037] - - temperature, heat generation & etc. are impacts; [0022], [0023] - - determining material properties e.g. elasticity; elasticity indicates an amount of degradation).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Zeng and Ferrar teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Zeng further teaches: perform three-dimensional printing using a three-dimensional print configuration that is selected based on the amount of degradation ([0052] - - perform offline print mode tunning based on simulation result, the offline print mode tunning is selecting a configuration).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. WO 2020/246993 (hereinafter Zeng) in view of Ferrar et al. US 2021/0162509 (hereinafter Ferrar) and further in view of Luan et al. WO 2020/091726 (hereinafter Luan).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zeng and Ferrar teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Zeng teaches: to determine the amount of degradation of the powder at the voxel based on the initial amount of powder degradation, the first impact, and the second impact ([0032]-[0037] - - temperature, heat generation & etc. are impacts; [0022], [0023] - - determining material properties e.g. elasticity; elasticity indicates an amount of degradation; simulate transient thermal behavior over time, thus the initial condition is considered).
But the combination of Zeng and Ferrar does not explicitly teach: to use a neural network or a support vector regression to determine powder properties.
However, Luan teaches: to use a neural network or a support vector regression to determine powder properties. ([0008] - - neural network is used for simulation).
Zeng, Ferrar and Luan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above medium, as taught by the combination of Zeng and Ferrar, and incorporating using neural network to determine degradation, as taught by Luan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to monitoring 3D printing, as suggested by Luan (Abstract).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. WO 2020/246993 (hereinafter Zeng) ) in view of Ferrar et al. US 2021/0162509 (hereinafter Ferrar) and further in view of Alonso et al. US 2019/0054696 (hereinafter Alonso).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zeng and Ferrar teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Zeng and Ferrar does not explicitly teach: the three-dimensional print configuration comprises a ratio of fresh powder to recycled powder to use during three-dimensional printing..
However, Alonso teaches: the three-dimensional print configuration comprises a ratio of fresh powder to recycled powder to use during three-dimensional printing ([0063] - - selected ratio of recycled material and fresh material).
Zeng, Ferrar and Alonso are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Zeng and Ferrar, and incorporating selecting a ratio of fresh material to recycled material, as taught by Alonso.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce agglomeration, as suggested by Alonso ([0024]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights