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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 11/04/2025:
Claims 1-11 and 13 are pending.
Claims 12, 14, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 16 -21 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16-21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Group I, claim(s) 1-11 and 13, drawn to a method.
Group II, claim(s) 16-18, drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium.
Group III, claim(s) 19-21, drawn to a three-dimensional printing system.
Groups I, II, and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of
a method performed by a three dimensional printing system and comprising:
receiving a print job comprising a plurality of parts to be printed by the three dimensional printing system and ;
identifying that at least some of the plurality of parts include a particular part feature intended to be printed in a specific print mode, customized for printing the particular part feature;
executing the print job using the specific print mode for the particular part feature; and
monitoring the usage of the specific print mode,
wherein the specific print mode is just used for printing print jobs in which the particular part feature is to be printed,
this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Das et al. (US20160221262).
Das teaches a method performed by a three dimensional printing system ([0203] The control system 400 may comprise the PCS 405 for the LAMP system 100. In essence, the PCS 405 forms the brains of the LAMP system 400 and is the central processing unit of the system, responsible for automation functions. The PCS 405 may include the software algorithms to conduct adaptive slicing of the integral cored mold CAD files for optimized layer thickness, part surface finish, avoidance of stairstepping, and minimum build time as a function of critical features and feature sizes present in the mold design) and comprising:
receiving a print job ([0182] and [0204] The PCS may include all the necessary CAD data interfaces, machine automation and control hardware and software interfaces, and fault detection and recovery in order for the LAMP machine to function as a fully automated, operator-free solid freeform fabrication (SFF) machine…. FIG. 10a illustrates a plurality of stacked cross-sectional views of the 3D image that results in the turbine airfoil mold 3D casting of FIG. 10b) comprising a plurality of parts to be printed by the three dimensional printing system (see multiple turbine airfoil molds being formed in Figure 4 and the CAD slice patterns of multiple turbine airfoil molds in Figure 5a to Figure 5c) and ;
identifying that at least some of the plurality of parts include a particular part feature intended to be printed in a specific print mode, customized for printing the particular part feature ([0205] Intelligent adaptive slicing algorithms optimize build speed and throughput while at the same time carefully accounting for necessary feature resolution and/or surface finish embedded in each slice layer thickness. For example, sections of the integral cored mold containing critical features may be sliced at approximately 25 micron layer thickness, while other regions corresponding to the platform and pour cup with non-critical features or mostly vertical walls may be sliced at approximately 100 microns or larger layer thickness);
executing the print job using the specific print mode for the particular part feature ([0012] the SLMs project a two-dimensional image (e.g., from a CAD file) thereon. The two-dimensional image comprises a cross-section of a three-dimensional object to be formed within the various layers of the photopolymer, once cured and [0205] sections of the integral cored mold containing critical features may be sliced at approximately 25 micron layer thickness, while other regions corresponding to the platform and pour cup with non-critical features or mostly vertical walls may be sliced at approximately 100 microns or larger layer thickness. Data transfer and file format protocols transmit the CAD slice data to the SLM array. Intelligent software and hardware algorithms convert the CAD data slices to the stack of image frames necessary to be flashed at a high refresh rate to the array of SLMs in the MOIS); and
monitoring the usage of the specific print mode ([0187] The SLM array may receive a real-time video stream of CAD data-slice bitmap images from the control system 400 and [0203] Software algorithms may also adaptively adjust the exposure dose in real-time as a function of slice layer thickness to achieve the necessary full cure depth through the layer thickness regardless of the layer thickness; also see Figure 58 and Figure 59 where layer thickness is monitored as a function of part height and as noted in [0205] critical features may have a particular slice layer thickness and non-critical features will have a different slice layer thickness),
wherein the specific print mode is just used for printing print jobs in which the particular part feature is to be printed ([0205] sections of the integral cored mold containing critical features may be sliced at approximately 25 micron layer thickness).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-21 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Das et al. (US20160221262).
Regarding claim 1, Das teaches a method performed by a three dimensional printing system ([0203] The control system 400 may comprise the PCS 405 for the LAMP system 100. In essence, the PCS 405 forms the brains of the LAMP system 400 and is the central processing unit of the system, responsible for automation functions. The PCS 405 may include the software algorithms to conduct adaptive slicing of the integral cored mold CAD files for optimized layer thickness, part surface finish, avoidance of stairstepping, and minimum build time as a function of critical features and feature sizes present in the mold design) and comprising:
receiving a print job ([0182] and [0204] The PCS may include all the necessary CAD data interfaces, machine automation and control hardware and software interfaces, and fault detection and recovery in order for the LAMP machine to function as a fully automated, operator-free solid freeform fabrication (SFF) machine…. FIG. 10a illustrates a plurality of stacked cross-sectional views of the 3D image that results in the turbine airfoil mold 3D casting of FIG. 10b) comprising a plurality of parts to be printed by the three dimensional printing system (see multiple turbine airfoil molds being formed in Figure 4 and the CAD slice patterns of multiple turbine airfoil molds in Figure 5a to Figure 5c) and ;
identifying that at least some of the plurality of parts include a particular part feature intended to be printed in a specific print mode, customized for printing the particular part feature ([0205] Intelligent adaptive slicing algorithms optimize build speed and throughput while at the same time carefully accounting for necessary feature resolution and/or surface finish embedded in each slice layer thickness. For example, sections of the integral cored mold containing critical features may be sliced at approximately 25 micron layer thickness, while other regions corresponding to the platform and pour cup with non-critical features or mostly vertical walls may be sliced at approximately 100 microns or larger layer thickness);
executing the print job using the specific print mode for the particular part feature ([0012] the SLMs project a two-dimensional image (e.g., from a CAD file) thereon. The two-dimensional image comprises a cross-section of a three-dimensional object to be formed within the various layers of the photopolymer, once cured and [0205] sections of the integral cored mold containing critical features may be sliced at approximately 25 micron layer thickness, while other regions corresponding to the platform and pour cup with non-critical features or mostly vertical walls may be sliced at approximately 100 microns or larger layer thickness. Data transfer and file format protocols transmit the CAD slice data to the SLM array. Intelligent software and hardware algorithms convert the CAD data slices to the stack of image frames necessary to be flashed at a high refresh rate to the array of SLMs in the MOIS); and
monitoring the usage of the specific print mode ([0187] The SLM array may receive a real-time video stream of CAD data-slice bitmap images from the control system 400 and [0203] Software algorithms may also adaptively adjust the exposure dose in real-time as a function of slice layer thickness to achieve the necessary full cure depth through the layer thickness regardless of the layer thickness; also see Figure 58 and Figure 59 where layer thickness is monitored as a function of part height and as noted in [0205] critical features may have a particular slice layer thickness and non-critical features will have a different slice layer thickness),
wherein the specific print mode is just used for printing print jobs in which the particular part feature is to be printed ([0205] sections of the integral cored mold containing critical features may be sliced at approximately 25 micron layer thickness).
Regarding claim 2, Das teaches the method of claim 1. Further, Das teaches CAD slice patterns of multiple airfoil molds are analyzed ([0223] The method may further include analyzing a plurality of two-dimensional computer aided designs; the light beam presented on the portion of the photocurable medium having the shape from one of the plurality of two-dimensional computer aided designs) and projected as shown in Figure 5a to Figure 5C. Where multiple CAD slice patterns of airfoil molds are analyzed and adaptive slicing algorithms are used to optimize build speed for molds containing critical features as noted in [0205] then the monitoring the usage of the specific print mode comprises determining a number of parts comprising the particular part feature intended to be printed in the specific print mode.
Regarding claim 5, Das teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the specific print mode comprises print parameters for generating the particular part feature ([0203] Software algorithms may also adaptively adjust the exposure dose in real-time as a function of slice layer thickness to achieve the necessary full cure depth through the layer thickness regardless of the layer thickness and [0205] For example, sections of the integral cored mold containing critical features may be sliced at approximately 25 micron layer thickness, while other regions corresponding to the platform and pour cup with non-critical features or mostly vertical walls may be sliced at approximately 100 microns or larger layer thickness and .
Regarding claim 6, Das teaches the method of claim 5. Further, Das teaches thickness variations for printing particular features in [0205] and that the layers are created by coating a photosensitive medium with a corresponding thickness on top of previously built layers ([0188] The material recoating system 600—which for illustration purposes is shown as a wire-wound draw-down bar—sweeps uniform thickness layers of the photosensitive medium at high speeds across the interior of the material build platform 500, without disturbing the previously built layers and [0192] Thinner layers of the photosensitive medium may be created when the dimensions of a feature of the three-dimensional object require so. Similarly, when the dimensions of a feature of the three-dimensional object are large, thicker layers of the photosensitive medium may be used. In an exemplary embodiment, the overall dimensions of the overall build volume 510 may be approximately 24 inches (×) by 24 inches (Y) by 16 inches (Z) (24″×24″×16″)). Given that the thickness of the photosensitive medium corresponds to an overall volume of the photosensitive medium, then the amount of a print agent to be applied to a build material when generating the particular part feature will be a print parameter when the thickness is varied.
Regarding claim 7, Das teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
extracting a characteristic on at least some of the plurality of parts ([0258] FIGS. 38a-38f illustrate one embodiment of a method 3800 of performing direct slicing in accordance with various aspects as described herein, [0278] Reconstructing SAT Files, [0324] The slice images produced through STL slicing and Direct CAD Slicing in particular require further post-processing before they are ready for use in a LAMP build. The details of these various post-processing operations and algorithms are given in this section).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 9, Das teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the characteristic comprises at least one part descriptor that is relative to individual parts of the at least some of the plurality of parts, wherein the part descriptor is centroid coordinates of a part ([0414] The algorithm takes in four parameters as input as follows: [0415] (1) The centroid of the floating island at which supports need to be generated denoted by origin), information relative to a bounding box enclosing the part ([0258] The method 3800 may include computing a bounding box, as referenced at 3800b and [0259] Once the part has been loaded, its bounding box may be computed to obtain an estimate of the size of the bitmaps that would be generated, as referenced at 3800b), information relative to a shape of the part ([0357] Once, the 3D and 2.5D slices are computed, the volume lost by the layered part (denoted by cuspVolume1) at the given height z and the given layer thickness is determined by performing a subtraction operation in ACIS using the 3D slice as the ‘blank’ body and 2.5D slice as the ‘tool’ body and computing the volume of the resulting geometry), and information related to a mesh defining an outer surface of the part ([0293] In this way, once all the arrays ‘V[c]’, ‘O[c]’, ‘E[c]’ are computed and the number of disjoint shells identified, all the required topological information for reconstructing a SAT file from the STL mesh is recovered).
Regarding claim 10 and claim 11, Das teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the characteristic comprises at least one job descriptor that is dependent on a combination formed by the at least some of the plurality of parts, wherein the job descriptor is a total number of parts [0208] Calculations further reveal that by implementing adaptive slicing to use thinner layers (e.g., approximately 25-75 micrometers) in regions of the part containing critical features and thicker layers (e.g., approximately 250 micrometers) elsewhere, the part build rate may be increased to at least approximately 90 parts per hour) and a packing density of parts ([0333] The algorithm automatically computes the maximum extents of the slice image, determines the number of parts that may be built within the build area, lays them out at the correct coordinates and creates break lines along the mesh structure for easy removal of parts after the build is complete).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (US20160221262).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 4, Das teaches the method of claim 1. Das teaches regions with critical features have smaller layer thicknesses than regions with non-critical features or mostly vertical walls ([0205] sections of the integral cored mold containing critical features may be sliced at approximately 25 micron layer thickness, while other regions corresponding to the platform and pour cup with non-critical features or mostly vertical walls may be sliced at approximately 100 microns or larger layer thickness). Further, Das teaches the concept of a cusp volume, which is a geometric deviation between a hemispherical part and the corresponding additive manufactured part (see Figure 56 and [0344]). The cusp volume is used to determine a % volume deviation (see algorithm 14 on pg. 27-28). A maximum volumetric deviation of 2% is used for the adaptive slicing criteria in [0358], such that the layer thickness will adapt due to the volumetric deviation percentage changing with respect to the cross-section along the part height shown in Figure 58 ([0360]). For the spherical section shown in Figure 58, the layer thickness decreases towards the top (se Figure 58 and the change in thickness after a 4 inch height in Figure 59) where this is a decreasing cross-sectional area that will cause an increase the volumetric deviation percentage. Meanwhile, the vertical cylindrical cross-section has a larger maximum layer thickness since the volume deviation is zero ([0359]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the method of Das further comprise identifying the particular part feature by selecting a feature with a cross sectional area below a threshold size, since Das teaches that layer thicknesses are varied to maintain the volumetric deviation below a threshold, where the volumetric deviation increases as a decrease in cross-sectional area is observed. Implementing the adaptive slicing methods of Das using thinner layers in regions of the part containing critical features and thicker layers elsewhere has a benefit of increasing the part build rate that results in a 25-30% cost savings per part ([0208] Calculations further reveal that by implementing adaptive slicing to use thinner layers (e.g., approximately 25-75 micrometers) in regions of the part containing critical features and thicker layers (e.g., approximately 250 micrometers) elsewhere, the part build rate may be increased to at least approximately 90 parts per hour, resulting in a cost savings of approximately 25-30% per part).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US20160221262), and further in view of Chu et al. (US20220244704).
Regarding claim 13, Das teaches the method according to claim 1. While Das teaches that method of printing can have a wide range of applications extending beyond turbine airfoils ([0214] While reference was made herein to turbine airfoil molds, the embodiments of the present invention have wide-ranging applications beyond turbine airfoils. The embodiments disclosed herein allow for the design and manufacture of components that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to manufacture conventionally), further fails to teach wherein the plurality of parts is a plurality of brushes, and the particular part feature is a bristle of the brush.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining a method for additive manufacturing, Chu teaches the part is a brush and the particular part feature is a bristle of a brush ([0185]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the plurality of parts of Das be a plurality of
brushes, and for the particular feature of Das to be a bristle of the brush, as taught by Chu, to
achieve the predictable result of manufacturing three-dimensional components with regions corresponding to critical features with fine precision and other regions with non-critical features. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the method of Das to form a brush with bristles, since both Das and Chu use light modulating technology (Chu teaches in [0004] the inventors appreciate that high resolution stereolithography 3D printing, specifically Digital Light Processing (DLP) printing technology may be used that allows printing resolution of less than 100 μm and Das teaches in [0180] The projection lens 230 reduction ratio may be between approximately 1 and approximately 50, which may result in a minimum feature size between approximately 15 microns and approximately 0.3 microns) to achieve micron-scale printing resolutions. The bristles of Chu have diameters on the order of 100 μm ([0018] According to one embodiment, the bristles have a diameter that is less than about 100 μm), and provided that the system of Das has a minimum feature size between approximately 15 microns and approximately 0.3 microns, then the system of Das would be capable of printing the bristles of Chu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743