DETAILED ACTION
Final 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 .
Claims 1-7, 9, and 16-27 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 16-27 are rejected below.
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) 1-6, 9, 16-20, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0042095) in view of Goldberg (U.S. PG Pub. 20230364831) in view of Arisoy (U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0268091).
As to claims 1, 16 and 22 Chou teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored machine- readable instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: obtain a three-dimensional (3D) model of a component to be fabricated by a 3D fabrication system (element 4) a build volume (standard build volume); in response to a determination that the 3D fabrication system is unable to fabricate the component as a whole within the build volume(fig. 1 S3). determine, a partitioning of the 3D model into separate sections, wherein the separate sections correspond to portions of the component that are sized to be respectively or concurrently fabricated within the build volume[0038 In step S3 of FIG. 1, the size determination module 22 is configured to compare the 3D printable model 4 with the standard build volume 2, so as to determine whether the dimensions of the 3D printable model 4 exceed the build volume of the 3D printer. Referring to FIG. 3, the size determination module 22 determines that a projected area (i.e., a base area) of the 3D printable model 4 onto a surface defined by the length and the width of the standard build volume 3 does not exceed an area formed by the length and the width of the standard build volume 3. However, the height of the 3D printable model 4 is determined as exceeding the height of the standard build volume 3. Therefore, the size determination module 22 determines that the 3D printable model 4 is required to be partitioned into a plurality of 3D model segments that have dimensions not exceeding the standard build volume 3.]; and modify the 3D model to model the component as the separate sections [0040 - the model partitioning module is configured to partition the 3D printable model 4 into a plurality of 3D model segments 41 to 44 based on the partitioning parameter].
Chou teaches much of the claimed invention, but fails to teach that the component to be fabricated is a molded fiber toolset, and other claims of the invention, however, this and other limitations are taught by Goldberg as follows:
As to claims 1, 16 and 22 Goldberg teaches wherein the factors related to the molded fiber toolset[0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Goldberg into the system and methods of Chou. The motivation to combine is that Goldberg teaches [a]t a high level, it has been found that creating a generally porous mold, or a mold with porous regions or zones, can improve the performance of the mold and the quality of the parts created therefrom. It has further been determined that porous molds can be created using additive manufacturing techniques through manipulation of mold manufacturing parameters such as, but not limited to, layer thickness, number of perimeter layers, fill pattern and fill density [0035].
Chou and Goldberg teach much of the claimed invention, but fails to teach all claims 1, 16 and 22, however, this and other limitations are taught by Arisoy as follows:
As to claims 1, 16 and 22, Arisoy teaches a partitioning of the 3D model into separate sections respectively corresponding to portions of the component that are each fabricable by the 3D fabrication system within the build volume, wherein the partitioning maximizes compliance with a set of factors according to a hierarchy of importance such that non-compliance with at least one factor is permitted[0026, 0030, 0032-0033] (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Arisoy into the system and methods of Chou in view of Goldberg. The motivation to combine is that Arisoy teaches [p]reference information is established for these elements by a series of pairwise comparisons between the elements. This may be based, for example, on user-specified preference values or based on predetermined values created for the object being partitioned [0031]. This allows the user to determine how the portioning take place based on what is important to them and what can be disregarded (non-compliance).
As to claim 2, Chou teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to: determine whether the 3D fabrication system is able to fabricate the component as a whole within the build volume (fig. 1 s3).
As to claims 3, 17 and 23, Goldberg teaches wherein the factors related to the molded fiber toolset comprise either or both of factors pertain to the component of the molded fiber toolset and a mounting platen of the molded fiber toolset[0035].
As to claims 4, 18, and 24 Goldberg teaches wherein of factors related to the component of the molded fiber toolset comprise a type of slurry from which objects are to be formed on the molded fiber toolset [0037].
As to claims 5, 19 and 25 Chou teaches where wherein he instructions when executed by the processor cause the processor to: obtain a second 3D model of a second component of the fabricated by the 3D fabrication system, determine, a partitioning of the second 3D model into second separate sections that are each fabricable by the 3d fabrication system with the build volume; to model the second component as the second separate sections of the second 3D model (fig. 1 using the invention for a second model).
As to claim 5, Goldberg teaches second component is to be mounted to the component [0093 or 0154].
As to claim 5, Arisoy teaches a hierarchy that maximizes factors and restricts them [0026, 0030, 0032-0033] (fig. 2).
As to claims 6, 20 and 26, Goldberg teaches, wherein the set of factors further comprises factors directed to an ability of the portions of the component to be fabricated in a nesting arrangement within the build volume of the 3D fabrication system [0084].
As to claim 9, Chou teaches wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the processor to further: cause the 3D fabrication system to fabricate the portions of the component respectively corresponding to the separate sections based on the modified 3D model[0049].
Claim(s) 7, 21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0042095) in view of Goldberg (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0364831) in view of Sayers (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0122109).
Chou in view of Goldberg teach most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach that the limitations of claims however, this is taught by Sayers as follows:
As to claims 7, 21 and 27, wherein determination of the partitioning includes determination of a plurality of candidate partitioning locations of the 3D model, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to further: output the plurality of candidate partitioning locations; receive selection of one of the plurality of candidate partitioning locations, and wherein the 3D model is modified according to the received selection in order to model the component as separate sections [0028 – the user is given multiple layout based on various print metrics and can selected the one the best suits them for the partitions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Sayers into the system and methods of Chou. The motivation to combine is that Sayers teaches In one implementation, the processor positions the divisions in a second manner based on a different layout method. For example, the divisions may be positioned in the same order but with a different position determined due to a different method applied, such as a method optimizing a different print metric. The processor may determine the 3D print time associated with the second manner and output information about the determined 3D print time. The information may allow a user to select the preferred layout method based on the comparative 3D print metric [0028].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11-13 of the response, filed 3-22-26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Arisoy.
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 NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights