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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 15, and 17 – 23 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 § 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 1 – 4, 6 – 15, 17 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnke et al. DE 102020129534 (hereinafter Jahnke) in view of VORIS et al. US 2016/0067927 (hereinafter VORIS) and Petersen US 2016/0061551 (hereinafter Petersen).
Regarding claim 1, Jahnke teaches: a method for marking parts in an additive manufacturing (AM) process, comprising:
converting an encoded component file for a set of components to a text-based component toolpath file (Abstract - - an electronic volume model for a component; [0026] - - CLI is a text-based component toolpath file);
creating and encoding a set of serialization (SN) files for characters in a part marking geometry ([0015] - - serial number);
converting encoded SN files to a set of text-based SN toolpath files ([0026] - - CLI is a text-based component toolpath file); and
generating a combined print input file from the component toolpath file and the SN toolpath files to include both component scan paths and SN scan paths, wherein the generating includes combining location and part marking details from with SN geometries from the SN toolpath files to create modified SN toolpath files for part markings ([0027], [0028] - - new sequence of layer data sets 5.1…5.6 are combined print input file).
But Jahnke does not explicitly teach: a part SN location script
However, VORIS teaches: a part SN location script (Fig. 1, [0035] - - digital file includes location of an ID element; digital file is a script).
Jahnke and VORIS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 Jahnke, and incorporating a part SN location script, as taught by VORIS.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide identification of the 3D object, as suggested by VORIS ([0012]).
But the combination of Jahnke and VORIS does not explicitly teach:
the part marking geometry is configured to be applied to each of the plurality of components and includes a predefined sequence of character positions and possible character values for each position;
marking each of the plurality of components with a unique set of characters.
However, Petersen teaches:
the part marking geometry is configured to be applied to each of the plurality of components and includes a predefined sequence of character positions and possible character values for each position ([0026] - - 3D printing identifying text at outer surface of part, identifying text including serial number & etc. serial number is a predefined sequence of character);
marking each of the plurality of components with a unique set of characters ([0026] - - 3D printing identifying text at outer surface of part, identifying text including serial number & etc. serial number is a unique set of characters).
Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 Jahnke and VORIS, and incorporating marking plurality of components with a unique set of characters during 3D printing, as taught by Petersen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce additional cost and time associated with adding the exterior marking after the part has been manufactured, as suggested by Petersen ([0012]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the encoded component file and encoded set of SN files are encoded in a stereolithography (STL) file format ([0033] - - STL file).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the text-based component toolpath file and the text-based SN toolpath files include common layer interface (CLI) files ([0026] - - CLI files).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Petersen further teaches: the plurality of components comprises a plurality of duplicate components ([0026] - - the plurality of components are housings for suppressors).
Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: inputs include a batch number ([0015] - - batch number).
VORIS further teaches: the combined print input file is generated in response to inputs into a user interface, wherein the inputs include a print machine identifier and a build type ([0036] - - user inputs to interface program; Fig. 3, [0053] - - the fabricator of the object represents the print machine identifier; [0041] - - the print material represents a build type).
Jahnke and VORIS are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
VORIS further teaches: the user interface includes a graphical user interface (GUI) with selectable user inputs ([0036] - - the 3D printer interface program causes a series of interface screes to be presented to a user).
Jahnke and VORIS are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the component scan path is undisturbed by the SN scan path in the combined print input file (Fig. 1, [0027] - - the other data sets 4.1, 4.2 lie outside mark area are unchanged. Thus the scan path outside mark area is undisturbed; one vector 6.4 is inserted into the data of layer data set 4.4, since mark is outside of the original boundary of the layer 4.4, the scan path of layer 4.4 is undisturbed).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the set of SN files are created with a computer aided design (CAD) SN tool and wherein the encoded SN files are named with labels indicating a character value and a character position of an associated serialized character ([0036] - - CAD; file naming is a choice of the file designer; thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to name the file as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: inputting the combined print input file into an additive manufacturing printer and printing components with part markings using selective laser melting (SLM) ([0005] - - metals are laser melted, this is SLM).
Regarding claim 11, Jahnke teaches: a computing system, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to generate part markings in an additive manufacturing (AM) process, according to process that comprises:
in response to a selected AM build:
determining a combined toolpath folder associated with the AM build, wherein the combined toolpath folder includes serialization (SN) toolpath files representing a part marking geometry and a component toolpath file representing component geometries; and
generating a combined toolpath file that includes scan path data for both the batch of components and part markings ([0027], [0028] - - new sequence of layer data sets 5.1…5.6 are combined toolpath file).
But Jahnke does not explicitly teach:
receiving inputs that select an AM build for a batch of components;
a part SN location script that locates character geometries and assigns character values for each component
However, VORIS teaches:
receiving inputs that select an AM build for a batch of components (Fig. 1, [0036] - - user selects a 3D object for printing);
a part SN location script that locates character geometries and assigns character values for each component (Fig. 1, [0035] - - digital file includes location of an ID element; digital file is a script).
Jahnke and VORIS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 system, as taught by Jahnke, and incorporating a part SN location script, as taught by VORIS.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide identification of the 3D object, as suggested by VORIS ([0012]).
But the combination of Jahnke and VORIS does not explicitly teach:
each component in the AM build receives a unique set of characters.
However, Petersen teaches:
each component in the AM build receives a unique set of characters ([0026] - - 3D printing identifying text at outer surface of part, identifying text including serial number & etc. serial number is a unique set of characters).
Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 system, as taught by the combination of Jahnke and VORIS, and incorporating marking plurality of components with a unique set of characters during 3D printing, as taught by Petersen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce additional cost and time associated with adding the exterior marking after the part has been manufactured, as suggested by Petersen ([0012]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: converting the combined toolpath file to a combined print input file and implementing an AM build ([0027], [0028] - - new sequence of layer data sets 5.1…5.6 are combined print input file; Abstract - - additive manufacture component).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the SN toolpath files and the component toolpath file are stored in a text-based format ([0026] - - CLI files are text-based format).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the text-based format comprises common layer interface (CLI) files ([0026] - - CLI files).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the part marking geometries includes a predefined sequence of character positions, and wherein each character position includes a set of character values that can be printed at a given character position ([0015] - - serial number or a date of manufacture).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: inputs include a batch number ([0015] - - batch number).
VORIS further teaches the combined print input file is generated in response to inputs into a user interface from an operator, wherein the inputs include a print machine identifier and a build type ([0036] - - user inputs to interface program; Fig. 3, [0053] - - the fabricator of the object represents the print machine identifier; [0041] - - the print material represents a build type).
Jahnke and VORIS are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the user interface includes a graphical user interface (GUI) with selectable user inputs ([0036] - - the 3D printer interface program causes a series of interface screes to be presented to a user).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the scan path data for the batch of components is undisturbed by the scan path data for the part markings in the combined print input file (Fig. 1, [0027] - - the other data sets 4.1, 4.2 lie outside mark area are unchanged. Thus the scan path outside mark area is undisturbed; one vector 6.4 is inserted into the data of layer data set 4.4, since mark is outside of the original boundary of the layer 4.4, the scan path of layer 4.4 is undisturbed).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the part marking geometry is created with a computer aided design (CAD) SN tool ([0036] - - CAD).
Regarding claim 21, Jahnke teaches: method for marking parts in an additive manufacturing (AM) process, comprising:
converting an encoded component file for a set of components to a text-based component toolpath file (Abstract - - an electronic volume model for a component; [0026] - - CLI is a text-based component toolpath file);
creating and encoding a set of serialization (SN) files for characters in a part marking geometry ([0015] - - serial number);
converting encoded SN files to a set of text-based SN toolpath files ([0026] - - CLI is a text-based component toolpath file); and
generating a combined print input file from the component toolpath file and the SN toolpath files in which component scan paths and SN scan paths are merged, wherein the generating includes combining location and part marking details with SN geometries from the SN toolpath files to create modified SN toolpath files for part markings ([0027], [0028] - - new sequence of layer data sets 5.1…5.6 are combined print input file).
But Jahnke does not explicitly teach: a part SN location script
However, VORIS teaches: a part SN location script (Fig. 1, [0035] - - digital file includes location of an ID element; digital file is a script).
Jahnke and VORIS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 Jahnke, and incorporating a part SN location script, as taught by VORIS.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide identification of the 3D object, as suggested by VORIS ([0012]).
But the combination of Jahnke and VORIS does not explicitly teach:
the part SN location script specifies individual part markings for each of the duplicate components..
However, Petersen teaches:
a part SN location script specifies individual part markings for each of the duplicate components ([0026] - - 3D printing identifying text at outer surface of part, identifying text including serial number & etc. serial number is individual part markings).
Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
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 Jahnke and VORIS, and incorporating marking plurality of components with a unique set of characters during 3D printing, as taught by Petersen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce additional cost and time associated with adding the exterior marking after the part has been manufactured, as suggested by Petersen ([0012]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the SN scan paths extend a boundary of the component scan paths (Fig. 1, Abstract - - adding a partial area is extending a boundary).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Jahnke, VORIS and Petersen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jahnke further teaches: the SN scan paths etch a boundary of the component scan paths (Fig. 1, Abstract - - subtracting a partial area is etching a boundary).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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