DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18 have been amended. claims 19 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) and 101 rejections, previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. As a result, each and every objection and 112(b) and 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections directed to amended claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 to further specify:
each distance being between a respective point in the three-dimensional metrology data and a corresponding respective point in the three-dimensional model of the part.
LEE US 20230221698 A1 is introduced in view of new ground of rejection. The teachings of MUNTAL, Somarakis, Krause, Chin, PARK and GEIS as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL WO 2021221615 A1 in view of Somarakis US 20230410277 A11 and LEE US 20230221698 A1.
Regarding claim 1, MUNTALteaches a method comprising:
constructing a part through additive manufacturing from a three-dimensional model of the part ([0025] [0079] an object is generated in additive manufacturing, the 3D scanning measurements of the generated object is obtained);
performing three-dimensional metrology on the constructed part to form three-dimensional metrology data for the part ([0079] Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041] the 3D scanning measurements of the generated object is obtained);
Creating a single score for the constructed part, wherein the single score is based on a plurality of distances between the three-dimensional metrology data for the part and the three-dimensional model of the part (Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041] calculates difference between measured dimensions of an additively manufactured object and the intended dimensions of the object, a fitness score is created using a function f based on the differences and standard deviation of difference and predetermined tolerance ranges of the dimensions).
MUNTAL does not explicitly further teach:
displaying the single score; and
each distance being between a respective point in the three-dimensional metrology data and a corresponding respective point in the three-dimensional model of the part.
Somarakis explicitly teaches in an analogous art that displaying the single score ([0150] quality score displayed), and
LEE explicitly teaches in an analogous art that each distance being between a respective point in the three-dimensional metrology data and a corresponding respective point in the three-dimensional model of the part (LEE: [0044] [0047] the geometrical deviation of the manufactured object vs CAD model is determined by the Euclidean distances between the scanned point cloud and the model cloud, i.e. “each distance being between a respective point in the three-dimensional metrology data and a corresponding respective point in the three-dimensional model of the part”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL to incorporate the teachings of Somarakis and LEE, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein displaying the single score and each distance being between a respective point in the three-dimensional metrology data and a corresponding respective point in the three-dimensional model of the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to inform the operator, as Somarakis teaches in [0150], and to determine a deformation of the scanned object, as LEE teaches in [0047].
Regarding claim 2, MUNTAL further teaches the single score is based on a plurality of scaled distances, each of the plurality of scaled distances being based on a tolerance for the part (Fig. 2 [0049] – [0058] the difference of each dimension is multiplied by tolerance range t).
Regarding claim 3, MUNTAL further teaches the single score is based on a plurality of scaled distances squared ([0055] the scaled differences are squared).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis and LEE as applied to claims 1-3, further in view of Krause US 20210208568 A12.
Regarding claim 6, neither MUNTAL nor Somarakis explicitly further teaches the tolerance is selected based on an identifier for a machine used to form the part.
Krause explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the tolerance is selected based on an identifier for a machine used to form the part ([0092] 3D printer; [0137] [0138] manufacturing tolerance values associated with manufacturing machine identified by UID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL and Somarakis to incorporate the teachings of Krause, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the tolerance is selected based on an identifier for a machine used to form the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to associate data to the selected manufacturing machines, as Krause teaches in [0137].
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis, LEE and Chin US 20170056970 A13.
Regarding claim 8, claim recites similar limitations to that of claim 2 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
In addition, MUNTAL further teaches:
obtaining three-dimensional metrology data from a part constructed through additive manufacturing using a model of the part, build parameters for the part and a material for the part ([0079] Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041] obtains 3D scanning geometric data of an additively manufactured object using model data of the object i.e. “constructed using a model of the part, build parameters for the part and a material for the part”);
building a second part through additive manufacturing using a model for the second part, build parameters for the second part and a material for the second part wherein at least one of the model for the second part is different from the model of the part, obtaining three-dimensional metrology data from the second part; generating a score for the second part, the score for the second part being based on a second plurality of scaled distances and each scaled distance in the second plurality of scaled distances being based on a tolerance value for the second part (Fig. 2 [0038] –[0041] [0049] – [0059] additional objects are generated using geometrically compensated object model data i.e. “the model for the second part” “is respectively different from the model of the part”, difference between measured dimensions of the additively manufactured object and the intended dimensions of the object is calculated, the difference of each dimension is scaled by tolerance range t, the fitness scores are calculated for each generated additional objects based on the scaled difference and used to select the compensation model producing minimum fit ness score for more accurate parts).
MUNTAL does not explicitly further teach:
displaying the score for the second part;
at least one of the build parameters for the second part and the material for the second part is respectively different from the build parameters for the part and the material for the part;
the distance is a distance between a point on the second part provided by the three-dimensional metrology data for the second part and a corresponding point on the model for the second part.
Somarakis explicitly teaches in an analogous art that displaying the score for the part ([0150] quality score displayed); and
Chin explicitly teaches in an analogous art that at least one of the build parameters for the second part and the material for the second part is respectively different from the build parameters for the part and the material for the part ([0078] adjusting print parameters and materials to correct errors); and
LEE explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the distance being between a respective point in the three-dimensional metrology data and a corresponding respective point in the three-dimensional model of the part (LEE: [0044] [0047] the geometrical deviation of the manufactured object vs CAD model is determined by the Euclidean distances between the scanned point cloud and the model cloud, i.e. “each distance being between a respective point in the three-dimensional metrology data and a corresponding respective point in the three-dimensional model of the part”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL to incorporate the teachings of Somarakis, LEE and Chin, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein displaying the score for the second part; at least one of the build parameters for the second part and the material for the second part is respectively different from the build parameters for the part and the material for the part; and the distance is a distance between a point on the second part provided by the three-dimensional metrology data for the second part and a corresponding point on the model for the second part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to inform the operator, as Somarakis teaches in [0150]; to determine a deformation of the scanned object, as LEE teaches in [0047]; and to correct errors, as Chin teaches in [0078].
Regarding claim 9, MUNTAL further teaches the score for the part is based on the plurality of scaled distances by being based on squares of the plurality of scaled distances ([0055] the scaled differences are squared and the fitness function f is calculated based on the squared values).
Regarding claim 10, MUNTAL further teaches the score is based on the squares of the plurality of scaled distances by being based on a weighted sum of the squares of the plurality of scaled distances ([0049] - [0055] each squared scaled difference are weighted by the (1/(6sigma))**2 then summed up).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis, LEE and Chin as applied to claims 8-10, further in view of PARK KR 20110116602 A4.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of MUNTAL, Somarakis, LEE and Chin does not explicitly further teach the weighted sum is based on a same weight applied to each square of plurality of scaled distances, the same weight comprising an inverse of a number of scaled distances in the plurality of scaled distances.
PARK explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the weighted sum is based on a same weight applied to each square of plurality of scaled distances, the same weight comprising an inverse of a number of scaled distances in the plurality of scaled distances (page 8 paragraph 7 an average of a plurality of corresponding values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, Somarakis, LEE and Chin to incorporate the teachings of PARK, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the weighted sum is based on a same weight applied to each square of plurality of scaled distances, the same weight comprising an inverse of a number of scaled distances in the plurality of scaled distances. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to obtain average of the values, as PARK teaches in page 8 paragraph 7.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis, LEE and Chin as applied to claims 8-10, further in view of ZHANG CN 113761759 A5.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of MUNTAL, Somarakis, LEE and Chin does not explicitly further teach each distance is based on an inverse of the tolerance value.
ZHANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that each distance is based on an inverse of the tolerance value (page 3 Formula 2 paragraph 7 from the bottom, the deviation is normalized by the tolerance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, Somarakis, LEE and Chin to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein each distance is based on an inverse of the tolerance value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to normalize the differences with tolerances, as ZHANG teaches in page 3 paragraph 7 from the bottom.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis, LEE and Chin as applied to claims 8-10, further in view of Krause.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations to that of claim 6 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of Somarakis, LEE and Chin as applied to claims 8-10, further in view of GEIS US 20170108446 A16.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of MUNTAL, Somarakis, LEE and Chin does not explicitly further teach the tolerance value is dependent on an identifier for a machine used to manufacture the part.
GEIS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the tolerance value is dependent on an identifier for a machine used to manufacture the part ([0005] tolerance is determined by the longest length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, Somarakis, LEE and Chin to incorporate the teachings of GEIS, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the tolerance value is dependent on an identifier for a machine used to manufacture the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to maintain the dimensions, as GEIS teaches in [0005].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of LEE, Somarakis, and Krause.
Regarding claim 15, MUNTAL teaches a method comprising:
obtaining three-dimensional metrology data from a part formed through additive manufacturing ([0079] Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041] the 3D scanning measurements of the generated object is obtained);
obtaining expected geometry data of the part (Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041] obtains 3D scanning geometric data of an additively manufactured object);
generating an accuracy score for the part wherein the accuracy score is based on a plurality of modified distances, wherein each modified distance is based on a distance between the three-dimensional metrology data from the part and the expected geometry data of the part and is based on a tolerance for the part ([0079] Fig. 2 [0038] – [0041] dimensions of an additively manufactured object using model data of the object is obtained using 3D scanner and comparing the measured dimensions to intended dimensions of the object, difference between measured dimensions of an additively manufactured object and the intended dimensions of the object is calculated; Fig. 2 [0049] – [0058] the difference of each dimension is multiplied by tolerance range t i.e. “modified distance”; Fig. 2 [0042] – [0058] a fitness score i.e. “an accuracy score” is created using a function f based on the modified differences).
MUNTAL does not explicitly further teach:
the tolerance is based on an identifier of a machine used to form the part;
the three-dimensional metrology data comprising actual locations of a plurality of points on the part and the expected geometry data comprising expected locations for each of the plurality of points on the part, and the distance is a between the actual location for a point and the expected location for the point; and
displaying the accuracy score.
Krause explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the tolerance is based on an identifier of a machine used to form the part ([0137] [0138] manufacturing tolerance values associated with manufacturing machine identified by UID);
LEE explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the three-dimensional metrology data comprising actual locations of a plurality of points on the part and the expected geometry data comprising expected locations for each of the plurality of points on the part, and the distance is a between the actual location for a point and the expected location for the point ([0044] [0047] the geometrical deviation of the manufactured object vs CAD model is determined by the Euclidean distances between the scanned point cloud and the model cloud, the Euclidean distances is calculated by the coordinates of the respective pair of points in respective point cloud); and
Somarakis explicitly teaches in an analogous art that displaying the accuracy score ([0150] quality score displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL to incorporate the teachings of Krause, LEE and Somarakis, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the tolerance is based on an identifier of a machine used to form the part; the three-dimensional metrology data comprising actual locations of a plurality of points on the part and the expected geometry data comprising expected locations for each of the plurality of points on the part, and the distance is a between the actual location for a point and the expected location for the point; and displaying the accuracy score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to associate data to the selected manufacturing machines, as Krause teaches in [0137]; to inform the operator, as Somarakis teaches in [0150]; and to determine a deformation of the scanned object, as LEE teaches in [0047].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of LEE, Somarakis, and Krause as applied to claim 15, further in view of GEIS.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, and Krause does not explicitly further teach the tolerance is based on a dimension of the part.
GEIS explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the tolerance is based on a dimension of the part ([0005] tolerance is determined by the longest length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, and Krause to incorporate the teachings of GEIS, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the tolerance is based on a dimension of the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to maintain the dimensions, as GEIS teaches in [0005].
Regarding claim 17, GEIS further teaches the dimension of the part is the longest dimension of the part ([0005] tolerance is determined by the longest length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, and Krause to incorporate the teachings of GEIS, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein the dimension of the part is the longest dimension of the part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to maintain the dimensions, as GEIS teaches in [0005].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of LEE, Somarakis, and Krause as applied to claim 15, further in view of ZHANG.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, and Krause does not explicitly further teach each modified distance comprises the distance between the actual location for the point and the expected location for the point divided by the tolerance.
ZHANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that each modified distance comprises the distance between the actual location for the point and the expected location for the point divided by the tolerance (page 3 Formula 2 paragraph 7 from the bottom, the deviation is normalized by the tolerance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, and Krause to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein dividing each distance by the tolerance to form the modified distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to normalize the differences with tolerances, as ZHANG teaches in page 3 paragraph 7 from the bottom.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNTAL in view of LEE, Somarakis, and Krause as applied to claim 15, further in view of PARK.
Regarding claim 21, MUNTAL further teaches the single score is based on a weighted sum of a plurality of the modified distances squared (Fig. 2 [0049] – [0058] the difference of each dimension is scaled by tolerance range t, the scaled differences are squared, each squared scaled difference are weighted by the (1/(6sigma))**2 then summed up).
The combination of MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, and Krause does not explicitly further teach each weight being an inverse of a number of modified distances squared in the plurality of modified distances squared.
PARK explicitly teaches in an analogous art that each weight being an inverse of a number of modified distances squared in the plurality of modified distances squared (page 8 paragraph 7 an average of a plurality of corresponding values i.e. “each weight being an inverse of a number of modified distances squared in the plurality of modified distances squared”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, and Krause to incorporate the teachings of PARK, because they all directed to manufacturing process, to make the method wherein each weight being an inverse of a number of modified distances squared in the plurality of modified distances squared. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to normalize the differences with tolerances, as ZHANG teaches in page 3 paragraph 7 from the bottom.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 3, MUNTAL, Somarakis and LEE together teach the claim limitations of claim 3. However, MUNTAL, Somarakis and LEE do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
wherein the single score is based on one added to a weighted sum of the plurality of scaled distances squared.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the claims are allowable as they depend upon allowable claim.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 depends on claim 15, MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, Krause and PARK together teach the claim limitations of claim 3. However, MUNTAL, LEE, Somarakis, Krause and PARK do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the single score is based on:
PNG
media_image1.png
105
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where distancei is a respective distance between a respective actual location for a respective point of the plurality of points on the part and a respective expected location for the respective point, part tolerance is the tolerance for the part based on an identifier of a machine used to form the part,
PNG
media_image2.png
57
152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a respective modified distance of the plurality of modified distances, Wᵢ is a respective weight, number of points is the number of points in the plurality of points on the part, and PAS is the single score.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
QIU CN 111391327 A teaches 3D printing error based on coordinates of points in point cloud.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 MUNTAL and Somarakis are the prior arts of record
2 Krause is the prior art of record
3 Krause is the prior art of record
4 Krause is the prior art of record
5 Krause is the prior art of record
6 Krause is the prior art of record
Prosecution Insights