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
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/03/2023 are accepted.
Oath/Declaration
4. For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 05/03/2023 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2023 and 09/10/2024 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant's IDS form SB08 filed 05/03/2023 and 09/10/2024 are attached to the instant Office action.
Examiner Notes
6. Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham, v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.1.148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
7. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz et al. (Pub. No. US2020/0307174A1) and in view of an NPL “Scrappy: Using Scrap Material as Infill to Make Fabrication More Sustainable” by Wall et al. (hereinafter Wall, IDS provided dated 9/10/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Woytowitz teaches a processor-implemented method for 3D printing, the method comprising: identifying one or more physical objects to be infused within an object being 3D printed; (Woytowitz disclosed in page 10 para [0095] “The term “three-dimensional printing” (also “3D printing”), as used herein, generally refers to a process or method for generating a 3D part (or object). … In the 3D printing process, the deposited material can be fused, sintered, melted, bound or otherwise connected to form at least a part of the 3D object. Fusing the material may include melting or sintering the material.” In page 18 para [0170]: “The first mesh may be generated for an infill pattern of a part to determine material properties of the infill regions of the part. … The infill regions can represent a percentage that indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed. ... The infill can be found in the interior structure of a 3D printed model.”).
Woytowitz teaches generating at least one digital model of the one or more identified physical objects; (Woytowitz disclosed in page 18 para [0165-0166]: “The CAD model may be initially partitioned according to user input and built in tool path generator rules to produce numerical control programming codes of the partitioned computer model. Partitioning can generate one or more parameters for printing the part. … Prior to 3D printing a part, a user may select for a solid fill pattern or a sparse fill pattern. A solid fill design may comprise block type structures with continual density throughout the object. The solid fill model can be an exact replica of what a printer can create when the part is processed in solid design.” Further, in page 19 para [0171]: “FIG. 16 illustrates an example of a honeycomb infill. FIG. 17 illustrates an example of a grid infill. The infill may be covered with a solid material, such as the face skin in FIG. 17.”
The disclosure “solid fill design may comprise block type structures with continual density throughout the object; FIG. 16 and 17 illustrated an example of a honeycomb infill and a grid infill” correspond to claim element “identified physical objects”).
Woytowitz teaches analyzing a digital model of the object being 3D printed; (Woytowitz disclosed in page 17-18 para [0164-0165]: “The CAD model can comprise one or more features of the part that is selected from the group consisting of corners, edges, surfaces, solids, ridges, salient points, and image texture. The geometric features can define the form, fit, and function of the 3D printed part. … The CAD model may be initially partitioned according to user input and built in tool path generator rules to produce numerical control programming codes of the partitioned computer model. Partitioning can generate one or more parameters for printing the part.” The disclosure “CAD model” corresponds to claim element “digital model”).
However, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “determining one or more identified physical objects that can be infused within the object being 3D printed; modifying the digital model of the object being 3D printed to comprise an internal physical object infused within the object being 3D printed; printing the object being 3D printed over the internal physical object”.
Wall teaches determining one or more identified physical objects that can be infused within the object being 3D printed; (Wall disclosed in page 1 under ‘Abstract’: “We present a software system for fused deposition modelling 3D printing that replaces infill material with scrap to reduce material and energy consumption. Example scrap objects include unused 3D prints from prototyping and calibration, household waste like coffee cups, and off-cuts from other fabrication projects.” In page 2 section 1: “We introduce Scrappy, a system that automatically searches a library of scrap objects for ones that fit into a CAD model, ordered by how much infill it would replace. The implemented system shown consists of a Fusion 360 plugin to monitor the modelling process, search for fitting scrap objects in the background, and compute a hollowed 3D model and printing instruction files to fabricate the model with the selected scrap inside (Figure 1).”).
Wall teaches modifying the digital model of the object being 3D printed to comprise an internal physical object infused within the object being 3D printed; (Wall disclosed in page 6 section 5: “Determining the best scrap object that fits into a given target shape is an intractable problem to solve with a standard 3D modelling tool. … It must be possible to insert the scrap object without being blocked by already printed parts of the target shape and it must be possible for the print head to move around to continue printing the remaining target shape after insertion. Given a feasible placement of the scrap, the 3D printer’s instructions must be adapted to leave a hollow space affording insertion: … Our modified slicing routine removes these material and time intensive print lines for the inner (non-visible) surface. The synthesis of these user interface, algorithmic and design contributions combine into a time, energy and material saving system.” The disclosure “scrap objects include unused 3D prints from prototyping and calibration, household waste like coffee cups, and off-cuts from other fabrication projects” corresponds to “internal physical object”)
and Wall teaches printing the object being 3D printed over the internal physical object. (Wall disclosed in page 7 last para of section 5.2: “As proposed by Jacobson, we also pre-dilate the inner shape to account for 3D printing accuracy tolerances and pre-erode the target geometry to account for minimal wall thickness. When a scrap shape is selected by the user, we generate the interior surface geometry by conducting the swept volume of the inflated scrap geometry along the insertion direction. Figure 6 demonstrates this process.” In page 7-8 section 5.3: “Our customized slicer is a modification of the Kiri:Moto slicer. Typically, this and all other standard slicers will proceed layer-by layer determining all intersections of the layer plane with the input surface geometry … The slicer generates a G-Code file that serves as instructions to the 3D printer. The “cut plane” determined during the modified Matryoshka optimization above corresponds to a specific height along the printing direction. We identify G-Code corresponding to the layer closest to this height and insert commands to stop printing, move the printer bed to an easily accessible position, move the print head out of the way, and play a beep melody to alert the user that it is time to insert the object. The LCD screen on the printer is triggered to display customized instructions and prompts the user to confirm when the scrap is inserted so that printing may resume.”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
Regarding Claim 2, Woytowitz and Wall teach the method of claim 1, further Woytowitz teaches scanning a surrounding environment. (Woytowitz disclosed in page 22 para [0194]: “Sensors may be positioned on the robot end-effector of the three- dimensional printer in order to provide a sensor moving along with the deposited material. A robot end-effector may be a device positioned at the end of a robotic arm. The robot end-effector may be programmed to interact with its surrounding environment. Sensors may be located at various positions. The positions can be on- board the robot, on the effector, or deployed in the environment.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Woytowitz and Wall teach the method of claim 1, however, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the identified one or more physical objects to be infused within the object being 3D printed are identified using a visual scan and/or from a printing history, an STL file, and/or a CAD file”.
wherein Wall teaches the identified one or more physical objects to be infused within the object being 3D printed are identified using a visual scan and/or from a printing history, an STL file, and/or a CAD file. (Examiner notes that the claim language includes two optional embodiments, a first embodiment “visual scan” “and/or” a second embodiment “a printing history”. Since "and/or" is interpreted as at least one of, only one of the two embodiments need to be taught by the reference.
Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1: “We introduce Scrappy, a system that automatically searches a library of scrap objects for ones that fit into a CAD model, ordered by how much infill it would replace. The implemented system shown consists of a Fusion 360 plugin to monitor the modelling process, search for fitting scrap objects in the background, and compute a hollowed 3D model and printing instruction files to fabricate the model with the selected scrap inside (Figure 1)”. In page 4 section 4: “Our algorithm for determining insertion feasibility ensures that the scrap material does not stick out of the model and collide with the moving print head. The user can then either load a preview scrap object directly into the scene to inspect its alignment further, or request the hollowed geometry: … The user decides to print the Tardis using the first scrap shown in Fig. 2 (b). Our add-in exports the exterior and interior surfaces to our scrap aware 3D printing slicing algorithm, and the printing begins. … Precise insertion instructions are simultaneously visualized on the printer’s display screen. The user inserts the scrap and confirms that printing should resume. … The final result is a 3D printed model of a Tardis with a salt shaker …”. Further in page 4 section 4.1(2nd para at right col.): “When a 3D model of the scrap object readily exists, we can simply load it into the library. This covers a large number of scenarios: previous successful prints, objects with standardized …, or 3D models acquired of unique physical objects through 3D scanning.”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
Regarding Claim 4, Woytowitz and Wall teach the method of claim 1, however, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “enlarging the identified physical object”.
further Wall teaches enlarging the identified physical object. (Wall disclosed in page 5 section 4.2 (right col.): “The example shown in Figure 4a inserts an outdated model into a new one. … Many 3D models have a flat bottom which securely affixes the model to the build plate during fabrication, which makes them well suited for inserting as scrap. Figure 4b demonstrates a jar lid inserted into a gear. The shape of the lid forms a bridge-like shape. During FDM 3D printing, support material is often used to create bridges, which supports perimeters that are printed at a steep angle, or that are disconnected from the rest of the model. This scrap performs a similar function. The broken handle inserted into the scraping tool shown in Figure 4c performed a similar function to the model that it is inserted into. … Figure 4d shows a model that is often printed repeatedly to calibrate 3D printers. With many flat sides and a large volume compared to its surface area, this geometry is likely to fit many different models. Since this type of model is being printed repeatedly, it can also be used to print a larger version of the same model using a comparable amount of material as the original print.”
The disclosure above “During FDM 3D printing, support material is often used to create bridges, which supports perimeters that are printed; with many flat sides and a large volume compared to its surface area, this geometry is likely to fit many different models; and to print a larger version of the same model using a comparable amount of material as the original print” teaches the limitation “enlarging the identified physical object”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
Regarding Claim 5, Woytowitz and Wall teach the method of claim 1, however, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the enlarging of the identified physical object comprises printing support material and/or filament around positions of the internal physical object before the printing of the object being 3D printed over the internal physical object”.
wherein Wall teaches the enlarging of the identified physical object comprises printing support material and/or filament around positions of the internal physical object before the printing of the object being 3D printed over the internal physical object. (Examiner notes that the claim language includes two optional embodiments, a first embodiment “printing support material” “and/or” a second embodiment “filament”. Since "and/or" is interpreted as at least one of, only one of the two embodiments need to be taught by the reference.
Wall disclosed in page 5 section 4.2 (right col.): “The example shown in Figure 4a inserts an outdated model into a new one. … Many 3D models have a flat bottom which securely affixes the model to the build plate during fabrication, which makes them well suited for inserting as scrap. Figure 4b demonstrates a jar lid inserted into a gear. The shape of the lid forms a bridge-like shape. During FDM 3D printing, support material is often used to create bridges, which supports perimeters that are printed at a steep angle, or that are disconnected from the rest of the model. This scrap performs a similar function. The broken handle inserted into the scraping tool shown in Figure 4c performed a similar function to the model that it is inserted into. … Figure 4d shows a model that is often printed repeatedly to calibrate 3D printers. With many flat sides and a large volume compared to its surface area, this geometry is likely to fit many different models. Since this type of model is being printed repeatedly, it can also be used to print a larger version of the same model using a comparable amount of material as the original print.”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
Regarding Claim 6, Woytowitz and Wall teach the method of claim 1, however, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “determining an optimal application for an identified physical object”.
further Wall teaches determining an optimal application for an identified physical object. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1: “We introduce Scrappy, a system that automatically searches a library of scrap objects for ones that fit into a CAD model, ordered by how much infill it would replace. The implemented system shown consists of a Fusion 360 plugin to monitor the modelling process, search for fitting scrap objects in the background, and compute a hollowed 3D model and printing instruction files to fabricate the model with the selected scrap inside (Figure 1). … A customized slicer software generates printer code optimized for scrap insertions. We demonstrate how Scrappy handles common scrap, including previous outdated or broken prints, single use packaging, broken hardware, and many more, showing that scrap-filled objects require less material, time, and energy to fabricate.”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
Regarding Claim 7, Woytowitz and Wall teach the method of claim 1, however, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “printing filament and/or support material on the 3D printed object to further support and balance the 3D printed object”.
further Wall teaches printing filament and/or support material on the 3D printed object to further support and balance the 3D printed object. (Wall disclosed in page 7 section 5.2: “We assume that the user has determined the print direction for the outer object. This is reasonable and welcome as 3D printing surface quality, material strength and use of support material depend on the print direction. Since 3D printers proceed in layers perpendicular to the printing direction, this assumption implies that the “cut plane” must also be perpendicular to the known printing direction. … We must prevent too much of the inserted scrap from sticking out above the cut plane, so we short circuit the optimization for any configurations where the maximum distance of the inserted object is too far (0.6mm for our setup) and return zero. … we also pre-dilate the inner shape to account for 3D printing accuracy tolerances and pre-erode the target geometry to account for minimal wall thickness. When a scrap shape is selected by the user, we generate the interior surface geometry by conducting the swept volume of the inflated scrap geometry along the insertion direction.” This disclosure teaches the limitation “printing support material on the 3D printed object to further support”.
In page 8 Figure 5. shown “The optimization process: (b) At this alignment, it can only be scaled up to 45% of its initial size before colliding with the model mesh. (c) The optimization concludes after finding an alignment for which the scrap fts the model at its original size and can be inserted without collision.” This disclosure teaches the limitation “balance the 3D printed object”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
Regarding Claim 8, Woytowitz and Wall teach the method of claim 1, however, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “printing filament and/or support material on the 3D printed object to increase dimensions of the 3D printed object”.
further Wall teaches printing filament and/or support material on the 3D printed object to increase dimensions of the 3D printed object. (Wall disclosed in page 5-6 section 4.2: “During FDM 3D printing, support material is often used to create bridges, which supports perimeters that are printed at a steep angle, or that are disconnected from the rest of the model. … Figure 4d shows a model that is often printed repeatedly to calibrate 3D printers. With many flat sides and a large volume compared to its surface area, this geometry is likely to fit many different models. Since this type of model is being printed repeatedly, it can also be used to print a larger version of the same model using a comparable amount of material as the original print. Since this model is used for calibration purposes, it needs to maintain truthful printing dimensions and the look of the outer walls of the object.”
The disclosure above “Figure 4d shows a model that is often printed repeatedly to calibrate 3D printers. With many flat sides and a large volume compared to its surface area, to print a larger version of the same model using a comparable amount of material as the original print” teaches the limitation “printing support material on the 3D printed object to increase dimensions of the 3D printed object”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
Regarding Claim 9, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed in claim 1 for substantially similar rationale, therefore claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz and Wall as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 9 recites following limitations:
Woytowitz teaches a computer system for 3D printing, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method (Woytowitz disclosed in page 1 para [0010]: “The present disclosure provides analysis systems and methods, including systems and methods for structurally analyzing voxel-printed parts. Such systems and methods may be used in three-dimensional printing.” In page 23 para [0197]: “The computer system 2301 includes a central processing unit (CPU, also “processor” and “computer processor” herein) 2305, ... The computer system 2301 also includes memory or memory location 2310 (e.g., random-access memory, read only memory, flash memory), electronic storage unit …”. In para [0202]: “Methods as described herein can be implemented by way of machine (e.g., computer processor) executable code stored on an electronic storage location of the computer system 1801, such as, for example, on the memory 2310 … The machine executable or machine readable code can be provided in the form of software. During use, the code can be executed by the processor 2305. In some cases, the code can be retrieved from the storage unit 2315 and stored on the memory 2310 for ready access by the processor 2305.”).
Regarding claims 10-16, Woytowitz and Wall teach the computer system of claim 9, are incorporating the rejections of claims 2-8 respectively, because claims 10-16 have substantially similar claim language as claims 2-8, therefore claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz and Wall as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed in claim 1 for substantially similar rationale, therefore claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz and Wall as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 17 recites following limitations:
Woytowitz teaches a computer program product for 3D printing, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method (Woytowitz disclosed in page 1 para [0010]: “The present disclosure provides analysis systems and methods, including systems and methods for structurally analyzing voxel-printed parts. Such systems and methods may be used in three-dimensional printing.” In page 23 para [0202]: “Methods as described herein can be implemented by way of machine (e.g., computer processor) executable code stored on an electronic storage location of the computer system 1801, such as, for example, on the memory 2310 … The machine executable or machine readable code can be provided in the form of software. During use, the code can be executed by the processor 2305. In some cases, the code can be retrieved from the storage unit 2315 and stored on the memory 2310 for ready access by the processor 2305.”).
Regarding claims 18-23, Woytowitz and Wall teach the computer program product of claim 17, are incorporating the rejections of claims 2-7 respectively, because claims 18-23 have substantially similar claim language as claims 2-7, therefore claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz and Wall as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 24, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed in claim 1 for substantially similar rationale, therefore claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz and Wall as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 24 recites following limitations:
However, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional product,”
Wall teaches a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional product, (Wall disclosed in page 1 under ‘Abstract’: “We present a software system for fused deposition modelling 3D printing that replaces infill material with scrap to reduce material and energy consumption.” In page 4 section 4: “The user can then either load a preview scrap object directly into the scene to inspect its alignment further, or request the hollowed geometry: the original exterior of the Tardis with an embedded inner cavity snugly fitting the scrap. … The user decides to print the Tardis using the first scrap shown in Fig. 2 (b). … The user inserts the scrap and confirms that printing should resume. The final result is a 3D printed model of a Tardis with a salt shaker embedded inside, saving time, material, and energy.”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz and Wall and further in view of a Journal/article “Combining Augmented Reality and 3D Printing to Display Patient Models on a Smartphone” by Rafael Moreta-Martinez et al. (hereinafter Martinez, journal published on 2020).
Regarding Claim 25, Woytowitz teaches a data processing device for 3D printing, comprising: at least one 3D printer; (Woytowitz disclosed in page 24 para [0207]: “The computer system 2301 can include a 3D printing system. The 3D printing system may include one or more 3D printers.”).
However, Woytowitz doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “a digital model of an object to be 3D printed; one or more physical objects to be infused within a 3D printed object;”
Wall teaches a digital model of an object to be 3D printed; (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1: “We introduce Scrappy, a system that automatically searches a library of scrap objects for ones that ft into a CAD model, ordered by how much infill it would replace. The implemented system shown consists of a Fusion 360 plugin to monitor the modelling process, search for fitting scrap objects in the background, and compute a hollowed 3D model and printing instruction files to fabricate the model with the selected scrap inside (Figure 1).” Further, in page 5 section 4.2: “Figure 4d shows a model that is often printed repeatedly to calibrate 3D printers. With many fat sides and a large volume compared to its surface area, this geometry is likely to ft many different models. Since this type of model is being printed repeatedly, it can also be used to print a larger version of the same model using a comparable amount of material as the original print.”).
Wall teaches one or more physical objects to be infused within a 3D printed object; (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1: “Our insertion engine that handles the search for possible scrap inserts is based on an existing 3D nesting algorithm. A web-based scrap library keeps track of scrap objects, .... A customized slicer software generates printer code optimized for scrap insertions. We demonstrate how Scrappy handles common scrap, including previous outdated or broken prints, single use packaging, broken hardware, and many more, showing that scrap-filled objects require less material, time, and energy to fabricate.” In page 6 section 5: “Determining the best scrap object that fits into a given target shape is an intractable problem to solve with a standard 3D modelling tool. … It must be possible to insert the scrap object without being blocked by already printed parts of the target shape and it must be possible for the print head to move around to continue printing the remaining target shape after insertion.”).
Woytowitz and Wall are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing implementing support material infused or infilled within 3D printed object. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz and Wall, to modify infill regions indicates the amount of material a solid model should be filled with when printed in Woytowitz’s teaching, to include identified physical objects infused/infilled within the object being 3D printed in Wall’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Wall because “We contribute the idea of re-using many types of scraps as 3D printed infill, and a working system enabled by a novel combination of a custom add-in, slicer modification, a purpose-built end-to-end database, and a novel extension of a geometry processing algorithm. We built a system for FDM printing that makes use of these and other waste materials by using them to replace infill material. Our method includes custom slicer adjustments to avoid printing unnecessary internal walls. We created an extensible web based tool for makers to maintain a scrap library which provides instructions for locating scrap and integrating it during fabrication”. (Wall disclosed in page 2 section 1 (last para) and in page 10 section 8 respectively).
However, Woytowitz and Wall do not explicitly teach the limitation “3D printing, comprising: at least one augmented reality device”.
and Martinez teaches 3D printing, comprising: at least one augmented reality device. (Martinez disclosed in page 1 under ‘Abstract’: “Augmented reality (AR) has great potential in education, training, and surgical guidance in the medical field. Its combination with three dimensional (3D) printing (3DP) opens new possibilities in clinical applications. … Therefore, the purpose of this protocol is to describe a step-by-step methodology enabling inexperienced users to create a smartphone app, which combines AR and 3DP for the visualization of anatomical 3D models of patients with a 3D-printed reference marker. The protocol describes how to create 3D virtual models of a patient’s anatomy derived from 3D medical images. It then explains how to perform positioning of the 3D models with respect to marker references. Also provided are instructions for how to 3D print the required tools and models.”).
Woytowitz, Wall and Martinez are analogous art because they are related to performing 3D printing and visualize a virtual 3D printing process. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Woytowitz, Wall and Martinez, to modify 3D printing in Woytowitz and Wall’s teaching, to include augmented reality device in 3D printer or 3D printing process in Martinez’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Martinez because “AR holds great potential in education, training, and surgical guidance in the medical field. Its combination with 3D printing opens may open new possibilities in clinical applications. This protocol describes a methodology that enables inexperienced users to create a smartphone app combining AR and 3DP for the visualization of anatomical 3D models of patients with 3D-printed reference markers. In general, one of the most interesting clinical applications of AR and 3DP is to improve patient-to-physician communication by giving the patient a different perspective of the case, improving explanations of specific medical conditions or treatments. Another possible application includes surgical guidance for target localization, in which 3D-printed patient-specific tools (with a reference AR marker attached) can be placed on rigid structures (i.e., bone) and used as a reference for navigation.” (Martinez disclosed in page 8 heading ‘Discussion’).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cronin (Pub. No. US2016/0221266A1) disclosed methods and systems for creating an object having a two-part infill that is to be manufactured using a 3D printing process. In an implementation, the present disclosure is directed to a method of generating instruction for printing an object to be printed with a 3D printer, wherein the object has a shell and a printed infill. The method includes receiving information defining the shell; receiving printed-infill parameters defining the printed infill, wherein the printed infill has a geometry; receiving fluid-infill parameters; customizing the geometry of the printed infill as a function of the fluid-infill parameters; modifying the information defining the shell as a function of the fluid-infill parameters; and generating the instructions for printing the object based on the customizing and the modifying.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUPUR DEBNATH whose telephone number is (571)272-8161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am -4:30 pm.
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, Renee D Chavez can be reached on (571)270-1104. 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.
/NUPUR DEBNATH/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights