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 .
Claims 1-21 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on
12/16/2022.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB WO2018213334 A1 by Woytowitz in view of PGPUB US 6678575 by Graham.
This action is made Non-Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB WO2018213334 A1 by Woytowitz in view of PGPUB US 6678575 by Graham.Regarding Claim 1
Woytowitz teaches A method for generating tool paths across a surface of a computer aided design (CAD) model, the surface having a complex shape, the method comprising: [005]: “The present disclosure provides systems and methods that may address various problems with certain existing methods for 3D printing. In some cases, such systems and methods are used for determining tool paths for printing 3D parts or objects.” [ABSTRACT]: “A method for printing a 3D object may comprise receiving a computer model of the 3D object in computer memory and generating a parametric representation of the computer model of the 3D object.” [003]: ”Due to the complexity of geometry, it may be difficult to automate the tool path decision process. Additionally, existing methods may lack the capability for determination of complex 3D tool paths.”). defining at least one reference point on the surface of the CAD model; ([Abstract]: “Next, a first edge in a parametric representation of a curved surface of the computer model may be selected, and a 3D tool path may be generated at least in part by: (i) selecting a first set of points on the first edge;”) generating a plurality of substantially equi-spaced reference points1 across the surface of the CAD model; ([074]: “Upon selection of the first edge, a predetermined number of points (u0o,v0o), (u10,v10), . . . , (uno,Vno) may be selected along the first edge… Alternatively, the number of points can be evenly distributed regardless of the shape of geometry of the edge.”) connecting each of the reference points together with straight lines such that a first tool path is formed by a culmination of the straight lines; ([037]: “This produces a "G-code file" containing instructions tailored to a specific type of 3D printer. A vast majority of contemporary 3D printers execute printing commands and perform head path-planning using the numerical control programming language G-Code. Indeed, G-Code remains an industry standard for controlling automated machine tools, e.g., a 3D printer, during computer-assisted manufacturing.” The examiner interprets where connecting with straight lines is shown in paths as a series of vectors (G-code instructions) which are straight line segments.) generating a second tool path across the surface of the CAD model; (See Fig. 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
278
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See Fig. 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
436
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[006]: “computing coordinates of a second set of points on a second edge parallel to the first edge in the parametric representation, wherein the first edge and the second edge define the 3D tool path”) and, generating a plurality of intermediate tool paths that extend linearly between the first tool path and second tool path across the surface of a CAD model. ([008]: “In some embodiments, the method further comprises generating a second 3D tool path by using the second edge in (d) as a first edge of the second 3D tool path and generating a second edge of the second 3D tool path by performing step (d). In some embodiments, the method further comprises generating one or more subsequent 3D tool paths by repeating (c) and (d) until the curved surface is filled with tool paths.”)
While Woytowitz provides the mathematical basis for generating offset paths on curved 3D surfaces; Woytowitz fails to explicitly recite that the paths are "linear" between the boundaries or emphasize the "culmination of straight lines." However, Graham discloses identifying boundary points to define boundary lines on a solid model surface. Graham further teaches connecting equidistantly spaced points to form paths and adding inner rails (intermediate paths) to form a surface-conforming lattice. Graham teaches A method for generating tool paths across a surface of a computer aided design (CAD) model, the surface having a complex shape, the method comprising: (§1 Line 52-55: “The above discussed and other drawbacks and deficiencies of the prior art are overcome or alleviated by a method for defining a numerically controlled (NC) tool path on an identified region of a solid computer model.” §1 Line 36-43: “For complex regions, such as regions bounded by and/or encompassing a large number of part features where computer models are usually used to generate the NC tool paths, part programmers commonly cover a feature and/or model surface with NC tool paths and then manually edit these NC tool paths to remove sections of the NC tool path that were automatically generated.”) defining at least one reference point on the surface of the CAD model; : (§Abstract: “The boundary points are processed so as to generate a plurality of bounding curves, wherein the bounding curves are generated so as to conform to a surface of the identified region.” §3 Line 29-35: “Once the solid computer model 22 is obtained, a user examines it in order to identify a region 24 of interest on the surface thereof, wherein the identified region 24 represents a surface area for which an NC tool path is to be generated. To this end, a plurality of boundary points 26 are then located by the user, in order to bound the identified region 24.”) generating a plurality of substantially equi-spaced reference points across the surface of the CAD model; (FIG.6:
PNG
media_image3.png
956
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
§4 Line 7-9: “The rungs 36 are formed by connecting corresponding, equidistantly spaced rung connection points 38 on the first and second external rails (including the boundary points 26).”) connecting each of the reference points together with straight lines such that a first tool path is formed by a culmination of the straight lines;
(FIG. 2 (106):
PNG
media_image4.png
876
1248
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where connecting with straight lines is shown in boundary points processed to generate "boundary lines" which define a boundary area.
Fig 8:
PNG
media_image5.png
312
391
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Col.4 Lines 55-59 "...An NC tool path is created by adding points along the rails and rungs at a spacing consistent with the needs of the NC process. Tool axis vectors can then be constructed at each point, which may be identified in any appropriate manner that provides for proper sequencing of the tool path...." See Fig. 8-11 where the rails 26/32 represent the boundaries and the segmented rungs 36 represented segmented straight lines tool path between the rails 26 with paired connecting points 38 on two rails 26.) generating a second tool path across the surface of the CAD model; (§2 Line 2-5: “A second external rail is then created from a second pair of the boundary points, the second external rail also comprising a curve conforming to a surface of the solid computer mode.” §3 Line 61- §4 Line 4: “ Similarly, a second external rail 32 is created by associating a second pair 34 (i.e., the remaining pair) of boundary points with one another. It will be noted that the first pair 30 of boundary points and the second pair 34 of boundary points are preferably selected such that second external rail 32 runs in the same general direction as the first external rail 28. Moreover, the first pair 30 of boundary points and the second pair 34 of boundary points may be selected such that the first external rail 28 and the second external rail 32 are separated by the surface area of the identified region 24 for which an NC tool path is to be generated”) and, generating a plurality of intermediate tool paths that extend linearly between the first tool path and second tool path across the surface of a CAD model.” (FIG.8:
PNG
media_image6.png
882
816
media_image6.png
Greyscale
§4 Line 37-39: “The addition of internal rails 40 is illustrated in FIG. 8, in which a surface-conforming lattice 44 of bounding curves (rungs and rails) is now fully formed.”
FIG.9:
PNG
media_image7.png
950
868
media_image7.png
Greyscale
FIG.10:
PNG
media_image8.png
952
892
media_image8.png
Greyscale
FIG.11:
PNG
media_image9.png
928
864
media_image9.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the boundary and lattice definition techniques of Graham to the 3D surface modeling of Woytowitz to ensure uniform material coverage on complex parts, as this represents the application of a known technique (interpolated surface filling) to a known process (3D tool path generation) with a reasonable expectation of success. PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the 3D parametric path generation of Woytowitz with the boundary-definition and point-based lattice framework of Graham. Woytowitz provides the mathematical basis for generating offset paths on curved 3D surfaces, while Graham provides a robust methodology for a user to identify an arbitrary region of interest by defining boundary points. Applying the boundary-point definition and equi-spaced interpolation techniques of Graham to the 3D surface modeling of Woytowitz would improve the precision and flexibility of tool path generation for objects with complex geometries. Both references seek to solve the problem of automating path planning for complex shapes to reduce computational time and human error. The linear extension of intermediate paths between two defined boundaries is a predictable and standard method for achieving uniform surface coverage in CAM applications.
Regarding Claim 2
Woytowitz teaches The method of claim 1 (See Claim 1)
at least one edge of the surface of the CAD model, ([006: “The method comprises: (a) receiving a computer model of the 3D object in computer memory; (b) generating a parametric
representation of the computer model of the 3D object; (c) selecting a first edge in a parametric representation of a curved surface of the computer model;..” See [074].) (See FIG.6. [006]: “computing coordinates of a second set of points on a second edge parallel to the first edge in the parametric representation..” [075]: “A second edge parallel to the first edge may be computed..)
Woytowitz does not explicitly recite selecting "corners" or defining "perpendicular" oriented boundaries. However, Graham, which operates in the same field of NC toolpath generation on solid models, teaches that a region of interest can be bounded by selecting corners and points. Graham further discloses the formation of a surface lattice consisting of rails and rungs that define intersecting and perpendicular oriented boundaries. Graham teaches further comprising defining the first tool path and second tool path by selecting one or more of at least one corner of the surface of the CAD model,
(FIG.3:
PNG
media_image10.png
486
230
media_image10.png
Greyscale
§2 Line 34-36: “FIG. 3 is a side view of a computer model of an exemplary work piece, particularly illustrating four corners of an NC tool path boundary defined thereupon;”)(See §3 Line 29-35: Selection of arbitrary points along a surface is a known CAD selection method.) wherein the first tool path and second tool path define at least one of substantially perpendicular oriented boundaries and substantially parallel oriented boundaries (See FIG.8, §4 Line 37-39, FIG.6, See Graham comparison with current specification - Graham 36 shows tool path connected by segments 36 between the rails 26 (perpendicular boundaries).
PNG
media_image11.png
633
1189
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
760
928
media_image12.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the corner selection and perpendicular boundary definition of Graham into the parametric surface pathing method of Woytowitz to increase user flexibility in identifying processing regions on complex parts, as this is a known technique used to improve toolpath planning processes in a predictable manner.
Regarding Claim 3
Woytowitz teaches The method of claim 2 (See claim 2) further comprising selecting a resolution of the first tool path. (Fig 4:
PNG
media_image13.png
294
342
media_image13.png
Greyscale
[038]: “The tools paths can be controlled and designed with improved resolution in order to meet fine requirement, such as preferred fiber direction in three dimensions.” See ([074]: Woytowitz explicitly recognizes "resolution" and identifies point count as the control mechanism.)
While Woytowitz teaches that toolpaths must be designed with "improved resolution" for complex parts and that this is achieved by selecting a "predetermined number of points" along a model edge; Woytowitz fails to further clarifies that this density must be "consistent with the needs of the NC process". Graham reinforces this by teaching the addition of points at a "spacing consistent with the needs" of the manufacturing process. Graham teaches further comprising selecting a resolution of the first tool path. (See FIG. 4 above, §4 Line 54-57: “An NC tool path is created by adding points along the rails and rungs at a spacing consistent with the needs of the NC process.” The examiner interprets where resolution spacing is shown in adjusting point density (resolution).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to include a step for selecting the resolution of the toolpath, as this is a known technique for optimizing result-effective variables (e.g., path accuracy vs. processing time) in automated manufacturing. Such a combination yields the predictable result of a toolpath tailored to the specific geometric complexity of the CAD model. PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a specific "resolution selection" step into the toolpath generation method of Woytowitz and Graham. In the field of CAD/CAM and 3D printing, "resolution" is a well-known, result-effective variable.
Specifically, Woytowitz teaches that toolpaths must be designed with "improved resolution" for complex parts and that this is achieved by selecting a "predetermined number of points" along a model edge. Graham further clarifies that this density must be "consistent with the needs of the NC process". A PHOSITA would recognize that allowing a user to explicitly select this resolution is a routine design choice used to optimize the trade-off between the precision of the straight-line interpolation (recited in Claim 1) and the computational resources required., This represents the simple application of a known optimization technique to a known toolpath generation process with a high expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 4
Woytowitz teaches the method of claim 3, (See Claim 3) wherein selecting a resolution further comprises selecting a desired length of the first tool path as defined by a length of the straight lines connected together. (See [074], [084]: “In some cases, the number of points required to maintain the required accuracy may be at least 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200 or more for each tool path.” The examiner interprets where selecting length of straight lines is shown in point density (which defines segment length).
Woytowitz fails to teach that point spacing must be "consistent with the needs of the NC process" to ensure uniform results; However, Graham states that NC toolpaths are created by adding points at a "spacing consistent with the needs" of the process. Graham teaches wherein selecting a resolution further comprises selecting a desired length of the first tool path as defined by a length of the straight lines connected together. (See §4 Line 54-57: The examiner interprets where resolution by spacing is shown in selecting point "spacing," which is the length of the straight lines between points.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to define the "resolution selection" step of Claim 3 by selecting the "desired length" of the straight lines (spacing) between reference points, as this represents the simple application of a known optimization technique (adjusting segment length for precision) to a known toolpath generation method. Such a modification would yield the predictable result of a toolpath whose geometric fidelity is calibrated to the specific requirements of the complex CAD model surface. PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the parametric path generation of Woytowitz with the explicit point-spacing techniques of Graham. In the art of CAD/CAM, representing a curved surface via a toolpath requires a piecewise-linear approximation where discrete points are connected by straight lines (vectors).
The length of these straight lines is a well-known, result-effective variable. Specifically, Graham teaches that point spacing must be "consistent with the needs of the NC process" to ensure uniform results. Shorter line segments (finer resolution) provide a more accurate approximation of a complex curved shape but increase the data size and processing time; longer segments (coarser resolution) reduce data but may deviate from the intended geometry.
A PHOSITA would recognize that "selecting a desired length" of these segments is a routine optimization step to balance computational efficiency with geometric fidelity. Applying this standard parameter to the parametric toolpath method of Woytowitz represents the use of a known technique (segment length selection) to improve a similar process (3D toolpath generation) with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5
Woytowitz teaches The method of claim 3, (See claim 3) wherein selecting a resolution further comprises selecting a desired points-per-tool-path value. (See [074]: The examiner interprets where selecting points-per-tool-path is shown in selecting a specific number of points for the path. See [084]: The examiner interprets where point count for accuracy is shown as identifying the "points-per-tool-path" as a selectable variable for accuracy.
While Woytowitz teaches that a designer can control the "resolution" and "accuracy" of a tool path by selecting a "predetermined number of points;" Woytowitz fails to confirm that adding points along boundary curves at specific intervals is the standard method for preparing tool paths for numerically controlled (NC) manufacturing. Graham reinforces this methodology by teaching that NC paths are formed by "adding points" along model curves at intervals consistent with processing needs. Graham teaches wherein selecting a resolution further comprises selecting a desired points-per-tool-path value.
(See FIG.8, FIG.7:
PNG
media_image14.png
510
460
media_image14.png
Greyscale
§4 Line 18-40: “(9) Once the rungs 36 are created, the user is then free to move any of the boundary points 26 and the rung connection points 38 to a different location on the model 22. An example of this capability is shown in FIG. 7. As can be seen, each of the rung connection points 38 between the boundary points 26 of the first external rail 28 have been moved in a downward direction, toward the second external rail 32. It will also be noted that each rung 36 corresponding to a moved rung connection point 38 has been recalculated and reconfigured to conform to the surface of the model 22. (10) In addition to the external rails, the method 100 also provides a user with the capability of forming a series of internal rails 40. In a manner similar to the formation of the rungs 36, a user may be prompted for a desired number of internal rails 40 that are formed by connecting corresponding, equidistantly spaced rail connection points 42 on each of the rungs. Again, like the rungs 36 and the external rails 28, 32, the internal rails 40 are also conformed to the surface of the model 22. The addition of internal rails 40 is illustrated in FIG. 8, in which a surface-conforming lattice 44 of bounding curves (rungs and rails) is now fully formed.”)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the "resolution selection" step of Claim 3 by specifying a "points-per-tool-path value," as this is a known technique for optimizing result-effective variables in automated manufacturing. Such a combination yields the predictable result of a tool path with a specific point density tailored to the geometric complexity of the CAD model. PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the 3D parametric path planning of Woytowitz with the boundary-lattice framework of Graham. In the art of CAD/CAM, the accuracy of a tool path that approximates a curved surface is a direct function of the number of discrete points used to form that path.
Specifically, Woytowitz teaches that a designer can control the "resolution" and "accuracy" of a tool path by selecting a "predetermined number of points" (L5.2). Graham confirms that adding points along boundary curves at specific intervals is the standard method for preparing tool paths for numerically controlled (NC) manufacturing. A PHOSITA would recognize that allowing the user to select a "points-per-tool-path value" is a routine design choice used to optimize the trade-off between geometric fidelity (higher point count) and computational/processing speed (lower point count). Applying this known point-selection technique to the multi-boundary surface coverage method described in the references represents a predictable application of a result-effective variable to achieve a desired material deposition or removal profile.
Regarding Claim 6
Woytowitz teaches The method of claim 2 (See claim 2) further comprising selecting a step distance of the intermediate tool paths prior to generating the plurality of intermediate tool paths, ([049]: “In some instances, the tool paths have constant spacings or widths, which may conflict with other design requirements.” [074]: “In some cases, the number and/or distribution of the points may be determined based on pre-determined rules.” The examiner interprets where selecting step distance is shown in path spacing as a configurable parameter for surface filling.) wherein the step distance is defined as a distance separating adjacent tool paths. ([068]: “For instance, distances between portions of the curves (e.g. di, d2 and d3) may be different.” FIG. 4:
PNG
media_image15.png
962
606
media_image15.png
Greyscale
FIG. 6:
PNG
media_image16.png
1012
516
media_image16.png
Greyscale
([0075]: “FIG. 6 illustrates an example of computing a second edge 603 parallel to the first edge 601 and the distance between the two edges 601, 603 is equal to the constant width w.” The examiner interprets where definition of step distance is shown in "spacing" or "width w."
While Woytowitz teaches filling a surface with subsequent paths separated by a "width w;" Woytowitz fails to teach that the user should be prompted to select the number of internal paths, which inherently determines the spacing consistent with the needs of the manufacturing process. Graham teaches that a user may be prompted for a desired number of internal paths, where the "spacing between each rung depends on the number of rungs Selected ". Graham teaches further comprising selecting a step distance of the intermediate tool paths prior to generating the plurality of intermediate tool paths, (See FIG. 6, §4 Line 32-33: “The spacing between each rung depends on the number of rungs selected.” See §4 Line 32-33: The examiner interprets where selecting step distance is shown in internal path density being a user-selectable design choice.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to include a step for selecting the "step distance" of the intermediate tool paths prior to their generation, as this is a known technique for optimizing result-effective variables (e.g., coverage density vs. print time) in automated manufacturing (MPEP 2144.05). Such a modification would yield the predictable result of a tool path pattern with internal spacing calibrated to the specific requirements of the complex CAD model. PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the 3D surface filling logic of Woytowitz with the explicit user-controlled spacing parameters of Graham. In the fields of additive manufacturing and NC machining, "step distance" (also known as step-over) is a well-known result-effective variable,.
Specifically, Woytowitz teaches filling a surface with subsequent paths separated by a "width w". Graham teaches that the user should be prompted to select the number of internal paths, which inherently determines the spacing consistent with the needs of the manufacturing process,. A PHOSITA would recognize that allowing a user to explicitly select the "step distance" prior to generation is a routine optimization step used to balance material deposition/removal density with processing time and surface finish quality. Applying this standard CAM parameter to the 3D tool path method of Woytowitz represents the application of a known technique (step distance selection) to a known process (tool path generation) to yield the predictable result of controlled surface coverage.
Regarding Claim 7
Woytowitz in combination with Graham The method of claim 6 (See claim 6). Woytowitz teaches further comprising generating a plurality of parallel tool paths
(FIG.5:
PNG
media_image17.png
824
782
media_image17.png
Greyscale
[085]: “In the example illustrated in FIG. 5, a given tool path generation strategy may determine that a number of tool paths (e.g., tool path 501, 502, 503) parallel to edge (a) are generated first, then a number of tool paths (e.g., tool path 504, 505, 506) parallel to edge (d) are generated to fill the surface/region.”) between the substantially parallel oriented boundaries. (See FIG.6 & [0075])
While Woytowitz teaches that a surface is filled by generating " a number of tool paths (e.g., tool path 501, 502, 503) parallel to edge (a) are generated first... to fill the surface/region;" Woytowitz fails to teach the addition of "inner rails between the outer rails" which run in the "same general direction." Graham teaches that a processing region is filled by adding "inner rails between the outer rails." Graham teaches further comprising generating a plurality of parallel tool (§6 Line 8-11: “3. The method of claim 1, wherein said processing said plurality of bounding curves includes a plurality of rails, wherein said plurality of rails are disposed so as to run in the same general direction with one another.” The examiner interprets where "Running in the same general direction" is functionally parallel in CAM path planning.) paths between the substantially parallel oriented boundaries. (See FIG. 8-11 & §4 Line 37-39: The examiner interprets where filling between rails is shown in populating the region between outer boundaries with intermediate paths.)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to populate the target region defined in Claim 2 with a plurality of parallel toolpaths, as this represents the combination of familiar elements according to known methods (raster pathing between boundaries) to yield the predictable result of uniform surface coverage. Such a configuration is a standard functional requirement for automated manufacturing processes. PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the parametric surface filling logic of Woytowitz with the boundary-definition and internal rail populating methods of Graham. In the field of automated manufacturing (3D printing and NC machining), the standard technique for processing a surface area defined by two parallel boundaries is to populate that area with a plurality of parallel intermediate paths,.
Specifically, Woytowitz teaches that a surface is filled by generating "a number of tool paths... parallel to edge (a)". Graham reinforces this by teaching the addition of "inner rails between the outer rails" which run in the "same general direction". A PHOSITA would recognize that populating the space between the parallel boundaries (selected in Claim 2) using parallel toolpaths is the most predictable and effective method for achieving uniform material deposition or removal. Applying these standard raster-style pathing patterns to the specific complex geometries of Woytowitz represents the use of known elements according to established functions to achieve the predictable result of full surface coverage.
Regarding Claim 8
Woytowitz in combination with Graham teaches The method of claim 6 (See claim 6). Woytowitz teaches ([0103] Eqn (5):
PNG
media_image18.png
106
472
media_image18.png
Greyscale
[104]: “The requirements of Eqn (5) defines a unique point in parametric space (u,v,w) whose physical location lies a distance h from the physical location of parametric point {u0, v0, w0) and is perpendicular to the starting surface s0.” See FIG. 5 & [085]: The examiner interprets where boundaries are shown in the 3D surface mapping context.)
While Woytowitz teaches filling a curved surface with toolpaths to meet "fine requirements;" Woytowitz fails to explicitly recite "perpendicular" internal paths; however, Graham, which operates in the same field of NC toolpath generation, teaches that a processing region is filled by adding "rungs" (36) between external rail boundaries. Graham teaches further comprising generating a plurality of perpendicular tool paths (See FIG.6, §2 Line 42-45, §4 Line 7-9: The examiner interprets where generating perpendicular tool paths is shown in generating "rungs" which are paths transverse/perpendicular to the main rails. §6 Line 16-21: “5. The method of claim 1, wherein said processing said boundary points further comprises generating a plurality of bounding curves having a plurality of rails and a plurality of rungs, wherein said plurality of rails and said plurality of rungs are disposed relative to each other so as to form a lattice structure.” The examiner interprets where lattice structure is shown in intersecting (perpendicular) toolpaths.) between the substantially perpendicular oriented boundaries. (See FIG.8 & §4 Line 37-39: The examiner interprets where between perpendicular boundaries is shown in the bounded region with perpendicular internal paths.)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to populate the target region defined in Claim 2 with a plurality of perpendicular toolpaths, as this represents the application of a known technique (lattice/cross-hatch pathing) to a known process (3D toolpath generation) to yield the predictable result of thorough and uniform surface coverage. PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the 3D parametric path generation of Woytowitz with the explicit lattice/rung definition techniques of Graham. In the field of automated manufacturing (3D printing and NC machining), providing comprehensive surface coverage or increasing structural strength often requires generating toolpaths in multiple orientations, such as cross-hatching or perpendicular patterns.
Specifically, Woytowitz teaches filling a curved surface with toolpaths to meet "fine requirements". Graham teaches the predictable and standard method of populating a bounded region with "rungs" (perpendicular paths) to form a "surface-conforming lattice". A PHOSITA would recognize that applying the rung-generation method of Graham between the perpendicular boundaries established in Woytowitz (and recited in Claim 2) is a routine optimization used to achieve uniform material deposition or removal on complex parts. This represents the simple application of a known path-patterning technique (lattice generation) to a known process (3D toolpath modeling) to yield the predictable result of full surface coverage.
Regarding Claim 9
Woytowitz in combination with Graham teaches The method of claim 2 (See Claim 2). Woytowitz further comprising generating approach tool paths (See ([037] & [041]: “Tool paths may be generated for each layer for controlling the trajectory of the printer head” The examiner interprets where generating approach tool paths is shown in lead-in (approach) and lead-out (retreat) segments for safe tool entry.) that extend tangentially to reference points
([070]:
PNG
media_image19.png
70
672
media_image19.png
Greyscale
[077]: “where s(u,v) is the 3D surface definition, given for example by Eqn (1), and t is the edge tangent vector which can be computed from the specified surface by.. [077]:
PNG
media_image20.png
132
510
media_image20.png
Greyscale
) positioned along one of substantially perpendicular oriented boundaries or substantially parallel oriented boundaries. ([074] & [006]: The examiner interprets where along boundaries is shown as the use of boundary points as the start/end points for material processing.)
While Woytowitz teaches the mathematical framework for determining tangent vectors at model edges to control tool orientation; Woytowitz fails to reinforce the need for proper sequencing and tool axis vector construction in NC processes.
Graham teaches that NC tool paths require "proper sequencing" and the construction of tool axis vectors at reference points. Graham teaches further comprising generating approach tool paths (§2 Line 13-15: “A processing device is used for processing the boundary points, so as to generate a plurality of bounding curves.” See FIG. 2 & §3 Line 4-7: “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a method 100 for generating an NC tool path on an arbitrary region of a solid computer model, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.” §4 Line 57-59: “Tool axis vectors can then be constructed at each point, which may be identified in any appropriate manner that provides for proper sequencing of the tool path.” The examine interprets where NC sequencing is shown as the approach to the starting boundary point.) that extend tangentially to reference points positioned along one of substantially perpendicular oriented boundaries or substantially parallel oriented boundaries. (See FIG.8, §4 Line 37-39, FIG.6, See Graham comparison in claim 2.)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to include a step for generating approach tool paths that extend tangentially to these reference points, as this represents the simple application of a known technique (tangential lead-ins) to improve a similar process (automated 3D toolpath generation). Such a configuration is a routine design choice practiced in the art to ensure smooth tool transition into the processing region and to prevent tool orientation errors upon boundary entry.
Regarding Claim 10
Woytowitz in combination with Graham teaches The method of claim 2 further comprising generating retreat tool paths (See FIG. 2 & §3 Line 4-7, See ([037] & [041]: The examiner interprets where generating retreat tool paths is shown G-code and NC sequencing (retreat/lead-out) (standard functional requirements for safe machine operation).) that extend tangentially to reference points
(See [070] &[077]: The examiner interprets where tangentially to reference points is shown in determining tangency relative to the model boundaries for precise tool path control.) positioned along one of substantially perpendicular oriented boundaries and substantially parallel oriented boundaries. (See [070]: The examiner interprets where along boundaries is shown in use of boundary points as the definitive start and end locations for processing segments.)
While Woytowitz explicitly teaches selecting a first set of points on a first edge (boundary) and computing tangent vectors relative to those edges to define tool path orientation; Woytowitz fails to teach the construction of tool axis vectors at reference points to provide for the "proper sequencing of the tool path".
Graham teaches that NC tool paths require "proper sequencing" at reference points. Graham teaches further comprising generating retreat tool paths that extend tangentially to reference points positioned along one of substantially perpendicular oriented boundaries and substantially parallel oriented boundaries. (§4 Line 51-59: “The resulting set of curves on the surface of the identified region 24 of the solid computer model 22 may then be processed so as to generate an NC tool path via any method and/or device suitable to the desired end purpose. An NC tool path is created by adding points along the rails and rungs at a spacing consistent with the needs of the NC process. Tool axis vectors can then be constructed at each point, which may be identified in any appropriate manner that provides for proper Sequencing of the tool path.” The examiner interprets where along boundaries is shown in boundary points as the definitive start and end locations for processing segments.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to include a step for generating retreat tool paths that extend tangentially to these reference points, as this represents the simple application of a known technique (tangential lead-outs) to improve a similar process (automated 3D toolpath generation). Such a configuration is a routine design choice practiced in the art to ensure a clean exit from the material processing region and to prevent tool dwell marks on the complex CAD model surface.
Regarding Claim 11
Woytowitz in combination with Graham teach The method of claim 1 (See claim 1). Woytowitz teaches wherein the first tool path and the second tool path are parallel tool paths, (See FIG.6, [006], [075]) each of the first tool path and the second tool path include parallel reference points, ([075]: “ A second set of parametric points (u01,v01), (un,vn), . . . , (unl,vnl), on the opposite parallel edge (i.e., second edge) of the tool path may be generated, such that the straight line distance between the opposite points and the corresponding base points (uoo,voo), (u10,v10) . . . , (uno, vno) is equal to the constant width w.” The examiner interprets where paths include parallel reference points is shown as discrete sets of points on parallel boundaries are functionally "parallel reference points."
While Woytowitz explicitly calculates discrete sets of points on parallel edges to define toolpaths; Woytowitz fails to explicitly recite connecting these parallel points to form "perpendicular" toolpaths. However, Graham, which operates in the same field of NC toolpath generation on solid models, teaches that a processing region is filled by creating "rungs" (36) connecting "corresponding, equidistantly spaced rung connection points (38) on the first and Second external rails" Graham teaches wherein the first tool path and the second tool path are parallel tool paths, each of the first tool path and the second tool path include parallel reference points, (§4 Line 7-9: The examiner interprets where equidistant points are shown in the alignment of points across parallel boundaries.) wherein the method further comprises generating perpendicular tool paths from the parallel reference points of the first tool path and the second tool path. (§2 Line 5-9: “In addition, a plurality of rungs is created from rung connection points defined on the first and said second external rails, wherein the NC tool path is generated in a manner conforming to the conforming curves defined by the first and second external rails and the rungs.” See FIG.6 §4 Line 7-9, §6 Line 16-21 ,
FIG. 4:
PNG
media_image21.png
990
902
media_image21.png
Greyscale
FIG.5:
PNG
media_image22.png
960
920
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Also, See FIG.6, & §2 Line 34-34: “FIG. 3 is a side view of a computer model of an exemplary work piece, particularly illustrating four corners of an NC tool path boundary defined thereupon; FIG. 4 is a closer view of a the NC tool path boundary area in FIG. 3; FIG. 5 illustrates the formation of a pair of external rails using the four corners of the NC tool path boundary area; FIG. 6 illustrates the formation of a series of rungs spaced between the external rails, thereby creating additional rung connection points at each intersection between a rung and a rail;”) The examiner interprets where generating perpendicular tool paths from points is shown in connecting corresponding points on boundaries with perpendicular paths.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to populate the 3D surface mapped in Woytowitz with the lattice-style toolpaths taught by Graham, as this represents the application of a known technique (lattice/cross-hatch pathing) to a known process (3D toolpath generation) to yield the predictable result of increased part strength and thorough surface processing. PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the 3D parametric path generation of Woytowitz with the lattice-connection technique of Graham. In the fields of additive manufacturing and NC machining, providing comprehensive surface coverage or increasing mechanical strength often requires a grid or "lattice" of toolpaths rather than just parallel offsets,.
Specifically, Woytowitz teaches an automated method for generating parallel toolpaths and corresponding point sets on complex 3D surfaces. Graham teaches the standard CAM technique of populating a region between boundary "rails" by connecting corresponding discrete points with "rungs" (transverse paths) to form a "surface-conforming lattice". A PHOSITA would recognize that applying the point-connection logic of Graham to the parallel boundary paths generated in Woytowitz is a routine optimization used to achieve uniform material deposition or increased structural integrity. This represents the simple application of a known path-patterning technique (lattice generation from boundary points) to a known process (3D parametric toolpath modeling) to yield the predictable result of thorough surface coverage,.
Regarding Claim 12
Woytowitz is teaches A system for generating tool paths across a surface of a computer aided design (CAD) model, the surface having a complex shape, the system comprising: (System version of Claim 1. Similar Rejection to Claim 1. See Claim 1.) a user input;
(FIG. 1:
PNG
media_image23.png
996
650
media_image23.png
Greyscale
FIG. 11:
PNG
media_image24.png
944
932
media_image24.png
Greyscale
[058]: “ I/O devices 28 may include one or more interfaces for receiving signals or input from a user and/or printer 14, and for providing signals or output to printer 14 that allow part 12 to be printed.”) a media output; and, (See FIG.1 & FIG. 11, [058]: “ I/O devices 28 may include one or more interfaces for receiving signals or input from a user and/or printer 14, and for providing signals or output to printer 14 that allow part 12 to be printed.” [050]: “Computing device 15 may include a display 24, one or more computer processors ("processors") 26, any number of input/output ("I/O") devices 28, and one or more memories 30 for storing programs 32 and data 34.”) a processor connected to the user input and media output, wherein in response to a user defining at least one reference point on the surface of the CAD model, the processor is programmed to: (See FIG.1 & FIG. 11 [012]: “Another aspect of the present disclosure provides a system comprising one or more computer processors and computer memory coupled thereto.”) generate a plurality of substantially equi-spaced reference points across the surface of the CAD model; (See [074]: The examiner interprets where Equi-spaced points are shown in selecting predetermined number of points along an edge that can be evenly distributed.) connect each of the reference points together with straight lines such that a first tool path is formed by a culmination of the straight lines; ([037]: The examiner interprets where connect with straight lines for first tool path is shown as defining the path by a set of points.) generate a second tool path across the surface of the CAD model; ( See FIG. 3, FIG.5, [006]: The examiner interprets where generate second tool path is shown as computing a second edge parallel to the first edge.) and, generate a plurality of intermediate tool paths that extend linearly between the first tool path and second tool path across the surface of a CAD model. (See [008]: The examiner interprets where generate intermediate paths linearly between paths are shown in generating a plurality of subsequent (intermediate) tool paths to fill the surface between the edges.)
While Woytowitz explicitly includes hardware components such as processors and displays, and describes the mathematical programming for surface path generation; Woytowitz fails to define boundary points on a display. Graham teaches A system for generating tool paths across a surface of a computer aided design (CAD) model, the surface having a complex shape, the system comprising:
a user input; : (§2 Line 65-67: “The input device 8 may be any input device suitable to the desired end purpose such as a light pen, a keyboard 12 and/or a mouse 14.”) a media output; : (§2 Line 67- §3 Line 3: “Moreover, output device 10 may be any output device suitable to the desired end purpose, such as a printer 16, a plotter 18, a CRT and/or an LCD display 20.”) and, a processor connected to the user input and media output, wherein in response to a user defining at least one reference point on the surface of the CAD model, the processor is programmed to: (§2 Line 13-15 “A processing device is used for processing the boundary points, so as to generate a plurality of bounding curves.”) generate a plurality of substantially equi-spaced reference points across the surface of the CAD model; (See §Abstract, §3 Line 29-35: The examiner interprets where equi-spaced points are shown in equidistantly spaced connection points.) connect each of the reference points together with straight lines such that a first tool path is formed by a culmination of the straight lines; (See FIG. 2 (106), FIG. 8, Col.4 Lines 55-59: The use of straight lines (linear interpolation) to connect discrete points for an NC path is conventional.) generate a second tool path across the surface of the CAD model; (§2 Line 2-5 & §3 Line 61- §4 Line 4) and, generate a plurality of intermediate tool paths that extend linearly between the first tool path and second tool path across the surface of a CAD model. (§4 Line 37-39, FIG. 8-11)
It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the user-driven point selection of Graham into the automated interpolation system of Woytowitz. The motivation to do so would be to allow for user-specified precision in defining the boundaries of the area to be automatically filled with paths, thereby overcoming the inefficiencies of manual path editing noted in the art. Such a combination represents a predictable use of known path-generation techniques to yield the predictable result of automated, user-defined surface coverage. POSITA in the field of manufacturing CAD/CAM would be motivated to combine the interpolation framework of Woytowitz with the user-defined boundary point mechanism of Graham for the following reasons:
Automation of Manual Tasks: Graham notes that manually "teaching" or editing tool paths for complex regions is "slow, labor intensive and limited to manual levels of precision. Woytowitz provides a "technology-based solution" to automate this via boundary interpolation.
Predictable Improvement in Precision: Woytowitz explicitly mentions that tool paths can be "modified manually by a user such as via a user interface." [21] Incorporating the specific point-selection method of Graham into Woytowitz would allow the user to precisely target specific complex regions of a model for automated path generation.
Routine Application of CAD Tools: Using discrete reference points to initiate a path generation algorithm is a standard "tool of the trade" in CAD. Applying the interpolation logic of Woytowitz (interpolating intermediate paths between boundaries) to the user-driven boundary selection of Graham is a predictable application of computer graphics principles that would yield consistent and desirable surface coverage.
Regarding Claim 13
System version of Claim 2. Similar Rejection to Claim 2. See Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14
Woytowitz in combination with teaches The system of claim 13 (See claim 13). Woytowitz teaches wherein in response to the user selecting a resolution of the first tool path, ([038], [[085]: “Such tool path generation strategy may be pre- determined by the system or defined by a user.”) the processor is programmed to generate a number of reference points per tool path, the number of reference points per tool path ([074]: The examiner interprets where generating points per path is shown in The processor is programmed to generate a discrete count of points for the path.) corresponding to the selected resolution. ([084]: The examiner interprets where points corresponding to resolution is shown in mapping the point count to the required "accuracy" or "resolution".)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to program the processor of the combined system to generate a specific number of reference points corresponding to a user-selected resolution value, as this is a known technique for optimizing result-effective variables in automated manufacturing. Such a combination represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve an improved, user-controlled path density.
Regarding Claim 15
Woytowitz in combination with Graham teaches The system of claim 13 (See Claim 13). Woytowitz teaches wherein in response to the user selecting a step distance of the intermediate tool paths, ([0111]: “The process may be fully automated without user input. Alternatively, the process may be semi-automated where user may provide input via a user interface to guide the tool path generation process” [0117]: “For instance, a user may be allowed to specify a rule for partitioning a part via the GUI. Alternatively or additionally, the 3D model may be partitioned by a user manually via the GUI.” The examiner interprets where user selecting step distance is shown in path parameters being user-configurable.) the processor is programmed to interpolate a number of generated tool paths between the first tool path and the second tool path, ([008]: The examiner interprets where Interpolating paths between boundaries is shown as filling the region between boundaries with intermediate paths) each of the intermediate tool paths separated by the step distance. ([049]: The examiner interprets where paths separated by step distance is shown as identical to the "width " taught in the art.)
While Woytowitz teaches generating a first tool path and computing subsequent tool paths to "fill the surface/region" and recognizes that these paths have specific "widths w" or "spacings;" Woytowitz fails to explicitly teaches that a user may provide input to select a "desired quantity" of internal rails or rungs, which in turn determines the spacing between the paths. Graham, operating in the same field of NC path planning, teaches that a bounded region is filled by adding internal paths where the " the spacing between each rung depends on the number of rungs Selected " by the user. Graham teaches wherein in response to the user selecting a step distance of the intermediate tool paths, the processor is programmed to interpolate a number of generated tool paths between the first tool path and the second tool path, each of the intermediate tool paths separated by the step distance. (See FIG. 6, §4 Line 32-33: The examiner interprets where paths separated by step distance is shown as identical to the " spacing" taught in the art.)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to program the processor of the combined system to interpolate a specific number of intermediate tool paths based on a user-selected "step distance," as this is a known technique for optimizing result-effective variables (e.g., coverage density vs. processing time) in automated manufacturing (MPEP 2144.05). Such a modification yields the predictable result of a path pattern with density calibrated to the specific requirements of the complex 3D model.
Regarding Claim 16
System version of Claim 7. Similar Rejection to Claim 7. See Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17
System version of Claim 8. Similar Rejection to Claim 8. See Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18
Woytowitz teaches A computer implemented method for generating tool paths across a surface of a computer aided design (CAD) model, the surface having a complex shape, the method comprising: ([038]: “The present disclosure provides systems and methods for generating improved tool paths in an automated fashion. The tool paths may be generated to meet complex 3D geometry requirements.”) ([074]: The examiner interprets where equi-spaced points is shown in Automated point density control.) connecting, by the processor, each of the reference points together with straight lines such that a first tool path is formed by a culmination of the straight lines; ([037] & [041]: The examiner interprets where straight line paths are shown in NC G-code paths’ culminations of straight-line vector segments (piecewise linear).) ([008]: The examiner interprets where intermediate paths is shown in Regional filling between established paths.)
While Woytowitz explicitly teaches selecting a set of points along a first edge (path) and computing coordinates for subsequent toolpaths to fill a curved surface; Woytowitz fails to specifically focuses on the user-interactive aspects of path definition and populating a region with a lattice of internal paths. Graham, which operates in the same field of NC path planning, teaches that a user may define at least one reference point and a plurality of boundary points to bound a region. Graham teaches A computer implemented method for generating tool paths across a surface of a computer aided design (CAD) model, the surface having a complex shape, the method comprising: defining, by a user, at least one reference point on the surface of the CAD model; (§3 Line 29-35: The examiner interprets where user defines point is shown in interactive point selection.) generating, by a processor, a plurality of substantially equi-spaced reference points across the surface of the CAD model connecting, (See Col.4 Lines 55-59, FIG. 2 (106), FIG. 8, §4 Line 7-9: The examiner interprets where generate plurality of equi-spaced points are shown in forming rungs (paths) by connecting corresponding, "equidistantly spaced" rung connection points.) by the processor, each of the reference points together with straight lines such that a first tool path is formed by a culmination of the straight lines; (See FIG. 2 (106), FIG. 8, Col.4 Lines 55-59: The examiner interprets where the connect points with lines for first tool path is shown in an external rail (path) is a generated curve connecting boundary points. Linear connection (straight lines) of discrete points is a conventional step for CNC paths) generating, by the user, a second tool path across the surface of the CAD model; (§3 Line 61- §4 Line 4: The examiner interprets where user defined second path is shown in user-driven boundary definition.). and, generating, by the processor, a plurality of intermediate tool paths that extend linearly between the first tool path and the second tool paths across the surface of a CAD model. (§2 Line 5-9: The examiner interprets where intermediate paths are shown in regional filling between established paths.)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the interactive point-selection and boundary-definition features of Graham into the parametric surface pathing method of Woytowitz. Such a combination would allow a user to more precisely define processing zones on complex parts, representing a predictable improvement to an existing process using known techniques for their established functions.. The resulting sequence of steps yields the predictable result of a customized toolpath grid tailored to the specific geometry of the CAD model.
Regarding Claim 19
Computer implemented version of Claim 13. Similar Rejection to Claim 13. See Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 20
Woytowitz in combination with Graham teaches The method of claim 18 (See claim 18). Woytowitz teaches selecting, by the user, a resolution of the first tool path; ([038]: “The tools paths can be controlled and designed with improved resolution in order to meet fine requirement, such as preferred fiber direction in three dimensions.” [0111]: “One or more parameters can be modified or specified by a user at different operations.”) and, generating, by the processor, a number of reference points per tool path, ([085]: “In another example, the tool path generation strategy may determine the precision of how a single tool path can be controlled such as by controlling the number of points and/or distribution of points lie on an edge.” The examiner interprets where generating points per path is shown in The system being programmed to generate a discrete count of points to define the path.) the number corresponding to the resolution of the first tool path. ([084]: The examiner interprets where the number corresponding to resolution is shown in correlating the specific "number of points" to the "accuracy" or "resolution".)
Therefore, It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to include a step for a user to select a resolution which the processor then uses to generate a corresponding number of points, as this is a known technique for optimizing result-effective variables (e.g., path fidelity vs. computational load) in automated manufacturing (MPEP 2144.05). Such a combination represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the 3D parametric path-planning system of Woytowitz with the user-interactive NC path definition of Graham. In the fields of additive manufacturing and machining, "resolution"—defined as the fidelity of the piecewise-linear approximation of a curve—is a well-known result-effective variable.
Specifically, Woytowitz teaches that a processor can achieve "improved resolution" by selecting a "predetermined number of points" for each tool path. Graham confirms that adding points along boundary curves at specific intervals is a standard technique used to meet the specific requirements of NC material processing. A PHOSITA would recognize that allowing a user to select a "resolution" value, which the processor then automatically translates into a specific "points-per-tool-path" value, is a routine optimization used to balance geometric precision with computational processing time. This represents the simple application of a known control technique (parameter mapping) to an existing automated manufacturing process to yield the predictable result of a tool path calibrated to the geometric complexity of the CAD model.
Regarding Claim 21
Woytowitz in combination with Graham teaches The method of claim 18 (See claim 18). Woytowitz teaches selecting, by the user, a step distance of the intermediate tool paths ([0111]: Describes user input via GUI to adjust tool paths. The examiner interprets where use selecting step distance is shown in the "step distance" corresponding to the user-definable "width" or "spacing" parameters in Woytowitz.) prior to by the processor, a plurality of intermediate tool paths, ([085]: The examine interprets prior to generation as shown in software logic inherently requires parameters (strategy) to be set before generation starts.) and, generating, by the processor, a number of generated tool paths across the surface of the CAD model, ([008]: The examiner interprets where generating paths across surface is shown in the automated generation of surface-filling paths.) each of the generated tool paths separated by the step distance. ([049]: The examiner interprets where separated by step distance is shown in The "distance separating adjacent tool paths" being functionally identical to Woytowitz’s "width ."
Woytowitz fails to teach that the user provides input to determine the "desired quantity" and "spacing" of path elements (rungs and rails) consistent with manufacturing needs. Graham teaches selecting, by the user, a step distance of the intermediate tool paths (See FIG. 6, §4 Line 32-33: The examiner interprets where user selecting spacing is shown in the reinforcing the user’s role in defining path intervals.) prior to by the processor, a plurality of intermediate tool paths, and, generating, by the processor, a number of generated tool paths across the surface of the CAD model, each of the generated tool paths separated by the step distance. (§4 Line 54-57: The examiner interprets where path spacing is shown in reinforcing that generated paths are separated by specific intervals.)
It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing of the invention to configure the tool path generation method of Woytowitz to include a user-selectable step distance as taught by Graham. This combination represents the routine application of a known technique (user-defined input for process parameters) to a known method (automated tool path calculation) to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to control the resolution of a finished part. The motivation for providing this control is the known design incentive to optimize fabrication time and part quality based on specific manufacturing requirements. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable over the combined teachings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARIC RAYJEE MARKS whose telephone number is (571)467-6372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARIC R MARKS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
1 Spec [0074]: “Each of the perpendicular tool paths 460, 470, 480 include a plurality of reference points 402 equi-spaced apart by the length L.”
Prosecution Insights