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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by OGAWA et al. US 2019/0143607 (hereinafter OGAWA).
Regarding claim 1, OGAWA teaches: a computer-implemented method that, when executed by data processing hardware, causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving print instructions for a three-dimensional (3D) object, the print instructions including a sequence of print maps each corresponding to a sub-instruction for producing a respective cross-section of the 3D object (Fig. 5 - - receive heat input pattern; heat input patterns are print maps);
exposing, by an energy source, resin stored in a resin container at a print plane according to a first print map of the sequence of print maps ([0025] - - powder bed fusion using a laser);
receiving a temperature map associated with the first print map (Fig. 5, [0050] - - heat input pattern is a temperature map);
modifying an outer boundary associated with a second print map of the sequence of print maps based on the temperature map associated with the first print map, wherein the modified outer boundary comprises one of an expanded perimeter or a contracted perimeter (Fig. 10, [0118] - - the shaping data correction unit changes positions of upper, left and lower sides of the rectangle A similar to the position A1 of the right side; the outer boundary is expanded to compensate predicted shrinkage; Fig. 5, [0063] - - the thermal deformation amount is determined based on heat input pattern); and
exposing, by the energy source, resin stored in the resin container at the print plane according to the modified second print map ([0025] - - powder bed fusion).
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.
Claims 2, 4 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA et al. US 2019/0143607 (hereinafter OGAWA) in view of Zeng et al. US 2022/0088878 (hereinafter Zeng).
Regarding claim 2, OGAWA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But OGAWA does not explicitly teach: modifying the second print map comprises:
receiving, as inputs to a thermal history model, all print maps prior to the second print map;
simulating, using the thermal history model, a resin temperature at the print plane; and
modifying one or more print parameters associated with the second print map based on the simulated resin temperature at the print plane.
However, Zeng teaches:
receiving, as inputs to a thermal history model, all print maps prior to the second print map ([0052] - - predict thermal images using a neural network based on the fusing contone maps; the neural network is a thermal history model; the fusing contone maps are print maps);
simulating, using the thermal history model, a resin temperature at the print plane ([0052] - - predict thermal images using a neural network; thermal image indicates resin temperature); and
modifying one or more print parameters associated with the second print map based on the simulated resin temperature at the print plane ([0056] - - modifying the contone map based on the predicted thermal image).
OGAWA and Zeng are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by OGAWA, and incorporating simulating using a model, as taught by Zeng.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide correction for 3D printing, as suggested by Zeng ([0098]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of OGAWA and Zeng teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Zeng further teaches: the energy source includes a thermal imaging device ([0074] - - thermal image sensor).
OGAWA and Zeng are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of OGAWA and Zeng teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Zeng further teaches: modifying the second print map further includes:
measuring a resin temperature using an array of temperature measuring devices of the thermal imaging device, and
wherein simulating the resin temperature is based on the measured resin temperature ([0052] - - predict thermal images using a neural network based on captured thermal images captured thermal image is measured resin temperature).
OGAWA and Zeng are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of OGAWA and Zeng teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Zeng further teaches: measuring the resin temperatures comprises measuring the resin temperature at the print plane (Fig. 1 - - thermal sensor measures temperature at the print plane).
OGAWA and Zeng are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of OGAWA and Zeng teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
OGAWA further teaches: modifying one or more of an exposure time or an exposure intensity associated with the second print map (Fig. 10, [0118] - - the outer boundary is expanded from A to D thus, the exposure time and intensity was changed for the area between A & D).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of OGAWA and Zeng teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Zeng further teaches:
collecting temperature data that is indirect to the print plane according to the first print map ([0012] - - a thermal imaging stream obtained by thermal sensors);
and determining a simulated temperature model for the temperature map for the first print map ([0012] - - the model is used to predict thermal images for future layers is a simulated temperature model; [0046] - - a deep neural network architecture utilizes low resolution thermal images to predict high resolution fusing layer thermal image).
OGAWA and Zeng are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of OGAWA and Zeng teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Zeng further teaches: determining that the modified one or more print parameters associated with the second print map exceeds a predetermined threshold; and
adapting the thermal history model based on the modified one or more print parameters associated with the second print map ([0064] - - adapting the simulation based on printer operation variations captured by the machine learning; [0045] - - the neural network is trained based on a loss function).
Greene and Zeng are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA et al. US 2019/0143607 (hereinafter OGAWA) in view of Zeng et al. US 2022/0088878 (hereinafter Zeng) and further in view of Ong et al. US 2021/0031458 (hereinafter Ong).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of OGAWA and Zeng teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of OGAWA and Zeng does not explicitly teach: receiving, as input, exothermic effects from curing of the resin, and
wherein simulating, using the thermal history model, the resin temperature is based on the exothermic effects from the curing of resin according to all print maps prior to the second print map.
However, Ong teaches:
receiving, as input, exothermic effects from curing of the resin, and
wherein simulating, using the thermal history model, the resin temperature is based on the exothermic effects from the curing of resin according to all print maps prior to the second print map ([0196] - - modeling the effects of an exotherm of the photocuring reaction).
OGAWA, Zeng and Ong are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of OGAWA and Zeng, and incorporating simulating exothermic effect, as taught by Ong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve failure detection, as suggested by Ong ([0196]).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA et al. US 2019/0143607 (hereinafter OGAWA) in view of Greene et al. US 2018/0086003 (hereinafter Greene).
Regarding claim 10, OGAWA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But OGAWA does not explicitly teach: the energy source comprises a liquid crystal panel.
However, Greene teaches: the energy source comprises a liquid crystal panel ([0022] - - the light projection device includes a LCD).
OGAWA and Greene are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by OGAWA, and incorporating using LCD as energy source, as taught by Greene.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide 3D printing light projection device, as suggested by Greene ([0022]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116