DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6,10-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. [Bell] (US PGPub 2017/0050383), in view of Feinberg et al. [Feinberg] (US PGPub 2023/0356472), and further in view of Balestra et al. [Balestra] (US PGPub 2019/0362541).
As to claim 1
Bell discloses a method for calibrating extrusion parameters (material flow; see paragraph 0093, line 8) in an additive manufacturing system (3D printer 100, see Fig. 1) (see paragraph 0093, lines 1-10), comprising:
(1) executing extrusion commands and printing a plurality of tracks (traces 1011, 1013; see Fig. 10A) based on one or more printing templates (print sample; see paragraph 0084, line 6; also see Step 1110, Fig. 11) at different extrusion rates (see Figs. 10A and 11; also see paragraph 0084, lines 6-8);
(2) scanning the plurality of tracks to obtain at least one image of the plurality of tracks (see paragraph 0028, lines 9-14 and paragraph 0085, lines 5-9);
(3) processing the at least one image of the plurality of tracks to obtain geometry information (area of the trace; see paragraph 0094, line 11/thickness; see paragraph 0094, lines 18), the geometry information comprising width and height of each one of the plurality of tracks (see paragraph 0094, lines 8-23).
Further, Bell discloses the method comprising:
(5.2) comparing collected data (determined thickness; see paragraph 0022, line 3) with expected data (expected thickness; see paragraph 0022, line 4) to obtain a printing error result (result of the comparison); and
(5.3) determining whether the printing error result is within a pre-defined threshold (predetermined tolerance; see paragraph 0022, line 7); and
(7) if the printing error result is not within the pre-defined threshold, repeating the previous steps (see paragraph 0022).
However, Bell fails to specifically disclose the method comprising:
(4) generating a printing model based on the geometry information and the extrusion commands;
(5) evaluating the printing model by:
(5.1) printing at least one test and collecting printing data from the at least one test;
(5.2) comparing the printing data with data produced from the printing model to obtain a printing error result; and
(5.3) determining whether the printing error result is within a pre-defined threshold; and
(6) if the printing error result from step (5) is within the pre-defined threshold, adopting the printing model in step (4) as a reference for choosing extrusion parameters at a given extrusion rate.
Feinberg discloses a method comprising:
(4) generating a printing model (computer model 1224, see Fig. 12) based on the geometry information (geometry and intended mechanical properties; see paragraph 0128, lines 3-4) (see paragraph 0128, lines 1-6 and paragraph 0156, lines 9-13);
(5) evaluating the printing model by:
(5.1) printing at least one test (printed resolution test object; see paragraph 0195, lines 1-2) and collecting printing data from the at least one test (see paragraph 0195, lines 1-2); and
(5.2) comparing the printing data with data produced from the printing model to obtain a printing error result (error; see paragraph 0161, line 16) (see paragraph 0128, lines 1-12).
Balestra discloses a method comprising:
(5.3) determining whether a printing error result (outcome of comparison; Step 85, see Fig. 8) is within a pre-defined threshold (similarity sensitivity threshold; see paragraph 0084, lines 3-4) (see paragraph 0084, lines 1-6; also see Step 53, Fig. 6); and
(6) if the printing error result from step (5) is within the pre-defined threshold, adopting the printing model in step (4) as a reference for choosing extrusion parameters at a given extrusion rate (Step 55, see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0084, lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bell’s invention with Feinberg’s and Balestra’s inventions in order to generate a 3D model from the thickness of Bell’s traces and to maintain use of the 3D model when the expected thickness remains, since doing so would make it possible to reduce time and costs sustained in order to obtain one or more 3D models (see Balestra paragraph 0010, lines 2-4).
As to claim 2
Feinberg discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the extrusion commands are compiled in G-code (see paragraph 0127, lines 1-5).
As to claim 3
Bell discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more printing templates comprise at least one item selected from the group consisting of a steady-state template, a material leakage template, and a velocity transition template (see paragraph 0027, lines 20-25 and paragraph 0028, lines 9-14).
As to claim 4
Bell discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the height is obtained by a laser distance sensor, the laser distance sensor being part of a scanning module (see paragraph 0053, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0069, lines 1-10).
As to claim 5
Bell discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein:
step (2) further comprises projecting a laser beam towards at least one of the printed tracks at an angle along a direction on a printing bed;
the laser beam is generated by a laser module; and
the laser module is part of a scanning module (see paragraph 0053, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0069, lines 1-10).
As to claim 6
Bell, Feinberg, and Balestra disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein the angle is between about 45 degrees to about 50 degrees (see Balestra paragraph 0061, lines 1-8 and Feinberg paragraph 0076, lines 1-3).
As to claim 10
Feinberg discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the printing model is generated by a polynomial function of second or higher order (see paragraph 0205, lines 33-39).
As to claim 11
Bell discloses an additive manufacturing system (3D printer 100, see Fig. 1), comprising a processor (processing device 102, see Fig. 1), a printing nozzle (dispensing tips 230,232; see Fig. 2), and a scanning module (sensor 114, see Fig. 1), the scanning module comprising a camera and the processor being configured to:
(1) execute extrusion commands actuating the printing nozzle to print a plurality of tracks (traces 1011, 1013; see Fig. 10A) based on one or more printing templates (print sample; see paragraph 0084, line 6; also see Step 1110, Fig. 11) at different extrusion rates (see Figs. 10A and 11; also see paragraph 0084, lines 6-8);
(2) actuate the scanning module to scan the plurality of tracks to obtain at least one image of the plurality of tracks (see paragraph 0028, lines 9-14 and paragraph 0085, lines 5-9);
(3) process the at least one image of the plurality of tracks to obtain geometry information, the geometry information (area of the trace; see paragraph 0094, line 11/thickness; see paragraph 0094, lines 18) comprising width and height of each one of the plurality of tracks (see paragraph 0094, lines 8-23).
However, Bell fails to specifically disclose the processor being configured to:
(4) generate a printing model based on the geometry information and the extrusion commands;
(5) evaluate the printing model by:
(5.1) printing at least one test and collecting printing data from the at least one test;
(5.2) comparing the printing data with data produced from the printing model to obtain a printing error result; and
(5.3) determining whether the printing error result is within a pre-defined threshold; and
(6) if the printing error result from step (5) is within the pre-defined threshold, adopting the printing model in step (4) as a reference for choosing extrusion parameters at a given extrusion rate.
Feinberg discloses a processor configured to:
(4) generate a printing model (computer model 1224, see Fig. 12) based on the geometry information (geometry and intended mechanical properties; see paragraph 0128, lines 3-4) (see paragraph 0128, lines 1-6 and paragraph 0156, lines 9-13);
(5) evaluate the printing model by:
(5.1) printing at least one test (printed resolution test object; see paragraph 0195, lines 1-2) and collecting printing data from the at least one test (see paragraph 0195, lines 1-2); and
(5.2) comparing the printing data with data produced from the printing model to obtain a printing error result (error; see paragraph 0161, line 16) (see paragraph 0128, lines 1-12).
Balestra discloses a processor configured to:
evaluate a printing model by:
(5.3) determining whether a printing error result (outcome of comparison; Step 85, see Fig. 8) is within a pre-defined threshold (similarity sensitivity threshold; see paragraph 0084, lines 3-4) (see paragraph 0084, lines 1-6; also see Step 53, Fig. 6); and
(6) if the printing error result from step (5) is within the pre-defined threshold, adopting the printing model in step (4) as a reference for choosing extrusion parameters at a given extrusion rate (Step 55, see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0084, lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bell’s invention with Feinberg’s and Balestra’s inventions in order to generate a 3D model from the thickness of Bell’s traces and to maintain use of the 3D model when the expected thickness remains, since doing so would make it possible to reduce time and costs sustained in order to obtain one or more 3D models (see Balestra paragraph 0010, lines 2-4).
As to claim 12
Feinberg discloses the additive manufacturing system according to claim 11, wherein the extrusion commands are compiled in G-code (see paragraph 0127, lines 1-5).
As to claim 13
Bell discloses the additive manufacturing system according to claim 11, wherein the one or more printing templates comprise at least one item selected from the group consisting of a steady-state template, a material leakage template, and a velocity transition template (see paragraph 0027, lines 20-25 and paragraph 0028, lines 9-14).
As to claim 14
Bell discloses the additive manufacturing system according to claim 11, wherein the height is obtained by a laser distance sensor, the laser distance sensor being part of the scanning module (see paragraph 0053, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0069, lines 1-10).
As to claim 15
Bell discloses the additive manufacturing system according to claim 14, wherein:
step (2) further comprises projecting a laser beam towards at least one of the printed tracks at an angle along a direction on a printing bed;
the laser beam is generated by a laser module; and
the laser module is part of a scanning module (see paragraph 0053, lines 7-9 and paragraph 0069, lines 1-10).
As to claim 16
Bell, Feinberg, and Balestra disclose the additive manufacturing system according to claim 15, wherein the angle is between about 45 degrees to about 50 degrees (see Balestra paragraph 0061, lines 1-8 and Feinberg paragraph 0076, lines 1-3).
As to claim 20
Feinberg discloses the additive manufacturing system according to claim 11, wherein the printing model is generated by a polynomial function of second or higher order (see paragraph 0205, lines 33-39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, 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: Bell, Feinberg, and Balestra; individually or in combination; fail to specifically disclose the method and additive manufacturing system comprising:
(3.1) converting a color image to a gray image, the color image being captured by a camera;
(3.2) filtering high frequency noises from the gray image;
(3.3) for each one of the plurality of tracks, determining a location point and a straight line through the location point in the gray image; and
(3.4) for each one of the plurality of tracks, determining the width using intersection points of: the straight line associated with a respective said track; and portions of the respective said track highlighted by the laser beam (in regards to dependent claims 7 and 17). Accordingly, dependent claims 7, 17, and the claims which depend upon them include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571)272-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115