DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the nesting arrangements” when the first recitation is “plurality of nesting arrangements.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the assembly arrangement” when this is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a bounding box” when there is a previous recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the optimised 3D nesting arrangement” when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a 3D nesting arrangement” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “assembly components” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “information” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “different dispositions” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “different assembly arrangements,” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the footprint” when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the assembly arrangement” when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the information” when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the assembled components” when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program product containing a computer readable medium, which is directed to signals per se. The specification does not include a special definition nor does it limit the mediums to only non-transitory. Section 2106.03(I) of the MPEP states claims directed to transitory forms of signal transmission (signals per se) are not directed to any of the statutory categories of invention. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a patent eligible category of invention. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer readable medium.” Although the claim is not eligible under Prong 1, Examiner will continue the analysis of the claims as though they are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding claims 1-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 9-14 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 15 is directed to computer readable medium, which is not a statutory category of invention, as discussed above. Therefore, claims 1-14 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention, and claim 15 is not. The analysis of claim 15 will continue below in the interest of compact prosecution.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 9 and 15 recite the abstract idea of generating assembly arrangements and determining a 3D nesting arrangement, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "receiving component information representing components to be printed by a three dimensional (3D) printer” covers mental processes including observing a dataset about a component to be printed. Additionally, the limitation of “generating assembly arrangements representing a functional assembly of the components within a bounding box; and” covers mental processes including evaluating the dataset and making a judgment about how it should fit together within a defined space. Additionally, the limitation of “determining a 3D nesting arrangement using the generated assembly arrangements” covers mental processes including evaluating the fitment and determining a nesting arrangement from it. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 9 and additional dependent claims the additional element of “a controller”, as well as “computer-readable medium” (in the case of non-transitory), “a computer” in claim 15 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation of “a three dimensional (3D) printer” in claims 1 and 9, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 9 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 9 and additional dependent claims the additional element of “a controller”, as well as “computer-readable medium” (in the case of non-transitory), “a computer” in claim 15 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation of “a three dimensional (3D) printer” in claims 1 and 9, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the determination of the nesting arrangement, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining how the arrangements are generated, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining a characteristic of a component, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the bounding box, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining how the nesting arrangement is created, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining the determination of the nesting arrangement, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining creation of 3d printing data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining the generation of different dispositions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining the different dispositions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining what the different dispositions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 13 is directed to further defining the generation of different dispositions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining validation of an assembly arangement, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Norman USPPN 2022/0288858.
Regarding claim 1, Norman anticipates receiving component information representing components to be printed by a three dimensional (3D) printer; (Figures 21-23, [0056]-[0058], [0121]-[0122], the ring component information representing the rings to be printed is received by the 3D printing system)
generating assembly arrangements representing a functional assembly of the components within a bounding box; and (Figures 22-23, [0057]-[0058], [0122]-[0123], the rings are arranged in rows and columns within the bounding box)
determining a 3D nesting arrangement using the generated assembly arrangements. (Figures 21-23, [0056]-[0058], [0062], [0121]-[0123], a 3D nesting arrangement is made with the rows and columns of rings in the bounding box)
Regarding claim 2, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Norman also anticipates wherein determining the 3D nesting arrangement comprises generating a plurality of nesting arrangements using the generated assembly arrangements and comparing a nest quality of the nesting arrangements. ([0127], [0131]-[0132], 3D models are properly nested and packed in the bounding box; Figures 31, 32, [0066]-[0067], [0131], a quality evaluation is made of the nesting arrangement)
Regarding claim 5, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Norman also anticipates wherein a bounding box is used to determine whether the generated assembly arrangements are to be used to determine the optimised 3D nesting arrangement. (Figure 23, [0056]-[0058], [0127], [0131]-[0132], a bounding box is used to ensure that the number of rings printed is optimized)
Regarding claim 6, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Norman also anticipates further comprising generating a 3D nesting arrangement based on at least one of the generated assembly arrangements or a combination of the generated assembly arrangements. (Figures 21-23, [0056]-[0058], a 3D nesting arrangement is made of the rings which contains a combination of different rings)
Regarding claim 7, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 6. Norman also anticipates wherein determining the 3D nesting arrangement comprises substituting an assembly arrangement of a previously generated nesting arrangement with a different assembly arrangement to generate a further nesting arrangement. (Figure 27, [0062], different nesting arrangement jobs are used)
Regarding claim 8, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Norman also anticipates wherein the 3D nesting arrangement is used to generate printer data and to 3D print an assembly of components. (Figure 7 and 22, [0042], [0056]-[0058], the nesting arrangement creates printer data that is used to 3D print the components)
In regards to claim 9, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. (See figures 1 and 13 for the additional controller components)
Regarding claim 10, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 9. Norman also anticipates wherein the controller generates different dispositions of assembly components to modify a footprint of the assembly arrangements. (Figure 38, the diameter and width of the components can be modified to change their footprints)
Regarding claim 11, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 10. Norman also anticipates wherein the different dispositions are generated based on information concerning component relationships and/or component movability. (Figure 27, [0061], all of the parts are part of the same tray)
Regarding claim 14, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 9. Norman also anticipates wherein the controller is to validate an assembly arrangement if the footprint of the assembly arrangement does not exceed parameters that define a bounding box. (Figures 21-23 and 27, [0056]-[0058], [0061], [0121]-[0123], [0127], the controller ensures that the rings are properly nested and packed in the bounding box)
In regards to claim 15, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Roca Vila WO 2020/197553 (hereinafter Roca).
Regarding claim 3, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Norman does not explicitly recite pseudo-random generation is used to generate different assembly arrangements.
Roca teaches pseudo-random generation is used to generate different assembly arrangements. ([0036], a random forest system is used in the generation of the packing 3D models)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Norman with Roca as the references deal with 3D printing, in order to implement a system that uses pseudo-random generation for assembly arrangements and can generate different assembly volumes. Roca would modify Norman by using pseudo-random generation for assembly arrangements and generating different assembly volumes. The packing of the models can be done with machine learning methods that increase the precision of the packing. Also the volume of the components can be changed to increase stability during the build process (Roca [0038], [0021])
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Norman and Roca teaches the limitations of claim 3. Norman also teaches wherein a characteristic of a component is used to prioritise at least one component and to move the at least one component to modify a footprint of the assembly arrangement. (Figure 38 the ring can be moved and the footprint can be modified by changing the diameter and width)
Regarding claim 12, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 10. Norman does not explicitly recite wherein the controller is to generate different dispositions based on assembly component volumes.
Roca teaches wherein the controller is to generate different dispositions based on assembly component volumes. ([0021] different positions and placements are used when the volume of the 3D models are changed)
See motivation of claim 3.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Huang WO 2017/023284.
Regarding claim 13, Norman anticipates the limitations of claim 19. Norman does not explicitly recite wherein the controller is to generate different assembly arrangements by generating different dispositions for components having a largest sweeping volume.
Huang teaches wherein the controller is to generate different assembly arrangements by generating different dispositions for components having a largest sweeping volume. ([0019]-[0020], the max x, y and z directions of the printing head are used when creating the maximum number of parts on the tray)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Norman with Huang as the references deal with 3D printing, in order to implement a system has the largest sweeping volume. Huang would modify Norman by taking the sweeping volume of the print surface into account. The benefit of doing so is the efficiency with which the parts are printed being enhanced or substantially optimized (Roca [0038], [0021])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Halperin USPPN 2018/0024517: also teaches the nesting of 3D objects in a 3D print space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
