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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 21-28 and 30-34 are pending and the subject of this FINAL Office Action. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Interpretations
The specification very broadly defines “end effector” as any “interchangeable component of the fabricating system” (para. 0012). This is in contrast to the limited meaning of “refers to the functioning end part of a robotic arm” (para. 0012). Claim 21 does not require any particular fabrication system. Thus, the end effector is anything that can be attached to any part any generic fabrication system.
As is clear from the prior art and any skilled artisan, this claimed very broad subject matter is not allowable. Using “end effectors” on multi-axis arms, and multi-axis devices is very routine in the additive manufacturing art.
To re-iterate, the claims are directed to the simple, well-known method of applying material onto a contoured base using conventional automated control. This is not allowable.
The following claim language only recites material, not the specific way it is deposited: “applying, with the end effector, a plastic extrusion material onto the contoured surface of the mold layer by layer.” The “plastic extrusion material” is any plastic material. In fact, the specification never defines “plastic extrusion material” or “plastic material.” Thus, it is any plastic material (any organic synthetic or processed materials that are mostly thermoplastic or thermosetting polymers of high molecular weight and that can be made into objects, films, or filaments), which covers a very large amount of materials (e.g. urethane, polyester, PVC, polyethylene, nylon, polystyrene, acrylics, polycarbonates, etc.).
New Grounds of Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21-28 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 21, it is unclear what is subject to “dynamically coordinating rotational motion about multiple axes and translational motion along one or more axes during the application of the plastic extrusion material, wherein the motion coordination is based on the geometry of the contoured surface and results in continuous deposition along the surface.” This clause fails to recite a subject (e.g. end effector). Instead, the claim only recites what performs the “dynamic coordinating”: “by a motion controller of an automatic composite fabricator.” This generic “automatic composite fabricator” happens to also “operate[] the end effector.” However, the clause still fails to explain what is dynamically coordinated.
The scope of claim 31 is unclear because claim 31 fails to recite what is on the other side of the “tape, fiber, or adhesive.” Claim 31 recites “such that the plastic extrusion material is deposited over or between the tape, fiber, or adhesive to form part of a composite layup.” The plastic is deposited between the tape, fiber, or adhesive and something else, which is not recited in the claim. This something else is critical to the scope. For example, if plastic is deposited between the tape, fiber, or adhesive and the mold, then this is a different invention from between the tape, fiber, or adhesive and another plastic layer.
New Grounds of Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(1)the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(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 21-23, 25, 27-28, 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KEATING (US 20130295338).
As to claim 21, KEATING teaches 3D printing plastic material onto a contoured surface such as a mold (Figs. 6 and 13, paras. 0056 and 0090; para. 0038), and dynamically coordinating rotational motion about multiple axes and translational motion along one or more axes during the application of the plastic extrusion material, wherein the motion coordination is based on the geometry of the contoured surface and results in continuous deposition along the surface (id.).
The material is plastic (e.g. paras. 0048, 0039, 0056).
A “motion controller” is used to adjust material thickness at various contours (e.g. robotic arm under automatic control; paras. 0049, 0052, 0063).
As to claim 22, KEATING teaches wherein the rotational motion includes rotation
about at least a pitch axis and a yaw axis of the end effector (id.).
As to claim 23, KEATING teaches wherein the plastic extrusion material is applied as a plurality of layers that conform to the curvature of the contoured surface (id.).
As to claim 25, KEATING teaches wherein a deposition path is generated using a digital model of the contoured surface (paras. 0047, 0085, 0092, 0105).
As to claims 27-28, KEATING teaches further comprising pausing the deposition process and replacing the end effector with a second end effector configured to apply tape, fiber, or an adhesive material to the composite structure (Fig. 13B).
As to claims 30 and 32, the arm can move into any position including “vertically up, vertically down, at an angle that includes a vertically up or vertically down component, or purely horizontal” and “any azimuthal angle” to adjust to the mold (para. 0065; see also para. 0063).
As to claim 31, KEATING states that epoxy can be used, which is an adhesive (para. 0040). Also, tape can be applied between layers (Fig. 13).
As to claim 33, the material is dispensed continuously and on demand (e.g. automatically, as explained above).
As to claim 34, the print process involves depositing and solidifying/curing material (e.g. para. 0122, Fig. 6).
Claims 21-23, 25, 27-28 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PAGE (US20150367576).
As to claim 21, PAGE teaches 3D printing plastic material onto a contoured surface such as a mold (Figs. 4-5, 9, 12-16, 25, 31-32, paras. 0003, 0124, 0165), and dynamically coordinating rotational motion about multiple axes and translational motion along one or more axes during the application of the plastic extrusion material, wherein the motion coordination is based on the geometry of the contoured surface and results in continuous deposition along the surface (id.). It is also noted that anything can function as a mold, such as a first portion of a printed part, or a support or base structure, that forms the basis for the contouring of further layers (e.g. Figs. 12 & 25).
The material is plastic (e.g. para. 0115).
A “motion controller” is used to adjust material thickness at various contours (e.g. robotic arm under automatic control; Title, paras. 0066, 0133, 0161-64).
As to claim 22, PAGE teaches wherein the rotational motion includes rotation
about at least a pitch axis and a yaw axis of the end effector (Figs. 9, 12-16, 31-32).
As to claim 23, PAGE teaches wherein the plastic extrusion material is applied as a plurality of layers that conform to the curvature of the contoured surface (Figs. 4-5, 9, 12-16, 25, 31-32), and adjusting material thickness, density and contour (paras. 0069, 0072, 0074-75, 0077-78, 0130).
As to claim 25, PAGE teaches wherein a deposition path is generated using a digital model of the contoured surface (control/CAD/digital model; paras. 0066, 0161, 0176, 0179ff). It is also noted that all 3D printers use digital programs like CAD.
As to claims 27-28, PAGE teaches further comprising pausing the deposition process and replacing the end effector with a second end effector configured to apply tape, fiber, or an adhesive material to the composite structure (e.g. claims 4, 12, para. 0007, 0011-13, 0132).
As to claims 30 and 32, the arm can move into any position X, Y, Z, and rotationally to adjust to the mold (Fig. 12, for example).
As to claim 31, PAGE states that adhesives can also be deposited, or epoxy can be used, which is an adhesive (para. 0067-68, 0146).
As to claim 33, the material is dispensed continuously and on demand (e.g. automatically, as explained above).
As to claim 34, the print process involves depositing and solidifying/curing material (e.g. para. 0067-68, 0181).
New Grounds of Rejection - 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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KEATING or PAGE, in view of WOYTOWITZ (US 20200307174).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to substitute honeycomb infill for other infills to achieve known results with a reasonable expectation of success.
KEATING and PAGE teach familiar methods of printing materials with infills.
Neither KEATING nor PAGE explicitly teach honeycomb infills.
However, WOYTOWITZ demonstrates that honeycomb infills were known infill options with known benefits regularly used with success.
Alternatively, prior to 3D printing, a user may select for a sparse fill pattern. A sparse fill design does not produce a solid model. When viewed from the exterior, the printed part may still look entirely solid. However, the inside may comprise a web like pattern that can act to maintain the strength of the printed part. The pattern may also be a honeycomb structure. The sparse fill method comprises advantages including reduced weight, reduced cost, reduced build time, convenient manipulation of mechanical properties through design, advanced aesthetics without additional CAD work, and self-supporting parts. Since the sparse infill patterns can result in self-supporting parts, there one or more post processing operations may be employed, for example, cleaning of the support material. In addition, the sparse fill method can be used for strengthening porous objects by injecting resins through fill compositing
(para. 0168).
In sum, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to apply familiar honeycomb infills to achieve familiar infill results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KEATING or PAGE, in view of BUSBEE (US 20210039306).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to apply familiar defect detection using profilometers to quickly address the defect with a reasonable expectation of success.
KEATING and PAGE teach familiar methods of printing materials with infills.
Neither KEATING nor PAGE explicitly teach profilometers carried by the end effector or by a second end effector, the profilometer measuring a surface feature indicative of a defect.
However, BUSBEE demonstrates that profilometers to detect and fix defects were routine in the extrusion art. BUSBEE teaches extrusion-based contour molding on molds (paras. 0125 & 0182, Fig. 11, for example). A profilometer can be used to detect defects and correct them:
In some embodiments, 3D-printing comprises receiving, by a processing device, a 3D model of an object to be printed; receiving, by the processing device, information including at least one material property of a material to be 3D-printed; and generating, by the processing device, a set of sensor-based printer control parameters to print the object based, at least in part, on the sensor input. In some implementations, the processing device is further adapted to execute instructions for initiating 3D-printing of the object in the 3D-printer; receiving, during 3D-printing, the input from the sensor associated with the 3D-printing; and adjusting at least one printing property based on the sensor input. In some variations, the sensor is . . . a profilometer . . .
(para. 0081; emphases added). This shows that profilometers in contour-based extrusion printing were well-known options.
In sum, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to apply familiar profilometry techniques to achieve familiar defect correction with a reasonable expectation of success.
Prior Art
The following prior art also teaches automated multi-axes end effectors used on contoured molds: US 20230234228; US 20160046082; US 6136132; US 5997681; US 20220161486; US 20160243762; US11260582; US 20160001461; EP3736108B1; US 20200361145; KR 20190088105; US 20160075089; US 20160151833; US 20170252966; US 20220250309.
The following prior art, among others, also teach profilometers used to correct defects in extrusion printing: US 20200368970; US 20210370609.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743