DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Chinese Patent Application No. 20221131119.1 filed on 10/25/2022.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/9/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection and the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections (pages 7-9) are either persuasive or moot as the claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Note that new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are presented below for claim 1 and 7.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230152778 (hereinafter Weiss) in view of Benjamin et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170228474 (hereinafter Benjamin) and further in view of Newman et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200046512 (hereinafter Newman).
Regarding claim 1, Weiss teaches a method for integrated design and additive manufacturing of a support-free truss structure [0007-0008 — This specification describes technologies relating to computer aided design of physical structures using techniques that facilitate manufacturing, such as generative design processes, in which the three dimensional (3D) models of the physical structures are produced so as to facilitate manufacturing of the physical structures using additive manufacturing systems and techniques by reducing (or eliminating) the support structure needed to manufacture the physical structure of a designed part; 0042-0059, Fig. 1 — a system usable to perform geometry filtering and/or simulation results filtering during generative design to produce physical structures that are tailored for manufacturing using additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing and/or other manufacturing systems and techniques… an additive manufacturing (AM) machine, such as an extrusion AM 170, or other manufacturing machinery, which can be directly connected to the computer 110, or connected via a network 140], the method comprising:
S1, layout integrated optimization: receiving design parameters comprising an overhang critical angle and a specified molding direction, building an initial bas132 can be an input to a generative design process… a shape of a modeled object created using generative design processes or generative modeling can be improved for additive manufacturing by implementing an overhang angle filter to modify the shape to minimize support material required to be used to manufacture the part with an additive manufacturing tool (e.g., 3D printer).; 0059 — a 3D model can be generated to minimize the need for external support material (i.e., additional structure produced external to the manufactured object, in order to support the object, based on the 3D model of the object) by incorporating in the design of the 3D model additional material (by modifying the shape of the object by applying a geometry overhang angle filter) that can provide self-support for the manufactured object based on the generative designed 3D mode; 0080-0082 — the 3D model can be modified (during and/or after generative design) to help make the physical object be more self-supporting during manufacturing, e.g. during 3D printing, molding, or casting… The overhang angle α 196 can be defined as an inclination of a build face (or wall, surface) of the part from a vertical axis that corresponds to the build direction b];
establishing a layout optimization mathematical model to minimize a total volume of the truss structure [0052 — optimization of the geometric design of the 3D model(s) by the CAD program(s) 116 involves topology optimization, which is a method of light-weighting where the optimum distribution of material is determined by minimizing an objective function subject to design constraints (e.g., structural compliance with volume as a constraint); 0111 — physical structure 138 presents a modified beam shape that reduces both the contact area for the support structure 139, as well as its overall volume], and
identifying an initial connection geometry by adding components from the potential component set to the initial base structure through an iterative process [0046-0048, 0111-0114 — An initial 3D model 132 can be an input to a generative design process; 0160 — introduction and enforcement of the filtering during the generative design process can be performed either linearly or nonlinearly. In some instances where a geometry filter with solid blending is applied, the ramping up of the geometry filter can be performed as a sub-linear ramp, since some of the material added with the filtering in a previous iteration is still present, and thus creating a compounding effect];
S2, geometry integrated optimization: based on the initial connection geometry established in step S1 establishing a geometry optimization model using node coordinate variables as design variables [0098, Fig. 2 — the velocity at each point moves the geometry towards a more optimal shape, and the 3D shape can be advected to update the shape by moving each piece of the boundary according to its velocity; 0105 — The applied adjustment at each point on the surface of the shape adjust the evolution of the shape to make it more manufacturable; 0125-0128 — regions that require support structure can be mainly lines and points instead of large areas, thus minimizing the amount of support material needed; 0178-0182, Fig. 10 — results of 3D shapes of a triple clamp object by either applying (1060) or not applying (1050) additive overhang constraints when applying geometry and velocity filtering to prepare designs for additive manufacturing — various supports/struts and nodes are shown];
iteratively updating the node coordinate variables by utilizing mobility of nodes to satisfy the overhang angle constraint through the updating of the node coordinate variables such that components obtained by connecting the nodes meet the overhang angle constraint [0098, Fig. 2 — the velocity at each point moves the geometry towards a more optimal shape, and the 3D shape can be advected to update the shape by moving each piece of the boundary according to its velocity; 0105 — The applied adjustment at each point on the surface of the shape adjust the evolution of the shape to make it more manufacturable; 0125-0130 — regions that require support structure can be mainly lines and points instead of large areas, thus minimizing the amount of support material needed… It is determined how the shape boundary should move at each point… The modification can be applied to those faces of the shape that are exceeding the overhang angle; 0178-0182, Fig. 10 — results of 3D shapes of a triple clamp object by either applying (1060) or not applying (1050) additive overhang constraints when applying geometry and velocity filtering to prepare designs for additive manufacturing — various supports/struts and nodes are shown], and
S3, three-dimensional (3D) printing integrated manufacturing: extracting structure numerical information from the optimized geometric result obtained in step S2 to establish a 3D solid model, slicing the 3D solid model to generate a printing path and performing 3D printing according to the printing path, wherein reconfigured inclination angles enable the material to be self-supporting without auxiliary support structures, thereby forming the support-free truss structure [0056-0057, 0092 — the modified 3D shape can be provided for generation of toolpath specifications for an additive manufacturing machine to use the generatively designed 3D shape of the modeled object. At least a portion of the physical structure (or a mold for the physical structure) can be manufactured with the additive manufacturing machine using the toolpath specifications; 0116-0122 — The 3D geometry of the 3D shape, can be sliced in parallel to the build plate 315. Multiple slice planes, such as slice plane 320 can be defined to form discrete layers of the 3D shape along a direction associated with the manufacturing process; 0042-0056, Fig. 1 — a system usable to perform geometry filtering and/or simulation results filtering during generative design to produce physical structures that are tailored for manufacturing using additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing and/or other manufacturing systems and techniques… an additive manufacturing (AM) machine, such as an extrusion AM 170, or other manufacturing machinery, which can be directly connected to the computer 110, or connected via a network 140].
But Weiss fails to clearly specify performing node merging and crossed-component processing to obtain an optimized geometric result.
However, Benjamin teaches performing node merging to obtain an optimized geometric result [0055 — after generating the nodes of the lattice structure 110, the lattice structure engine 112 may remove one or more nodes from the lattice structure 110 based on a minimum distance threshold requirement between the nodes. Doing so may remove some of the nodes that are too close together and/or merge some of the nodes that are too close together into a single node to reduce the set of nodes for simplification of the lattice structure 110].
Weiss and Benjamin are analogous art. They relate to additive manufacturing systems.
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 Weiss, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Benjamin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to simplify the structure, as taught by Benjamin [0055].
But the combination of Weiss and Benjamin fails to clearly specify performing crossed-component processing to obtain an optimized geometric result.
However, Newman teaches performing crossed-component processing to obtain an optimized geometric result [0067-0071, Fig. 1 — FIG. 1A depicts a cell 100 of the porous structure. Such cell 100 includes a plurality of intersecting members (crossed components) or struts 102a-d… the angulation of intersecting struts, the location of connection between two or more struts (i.e., the location along the length of any given strut the intersection of another strut occurs), and the like can also be adjusted to achieve an operating strain within the desired range… other parameters can be adjusted to optimize mechanical strain, such as the number of struts and their angles of intersection].
Weiss, Benjamin and Newman are analogous art. They relate to additive manufacturing systems.
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 Weiss and Benjamin, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Newman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to achieve a desired operating strain and to optimize mechanical strain, as taught by Newman [0067-0071].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Weiss, Benjamin and Newman in view of Cheng ‘Three-dimensional Printing of Product Design Models Using Continuous-fiber-reinforced Composites’ Sensors and Materials, Vol. 33, No. 9 (2021) 3269–3282, published 2021 (hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Weiss, Benjamin and Newman teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Weiss teaches 3D modeling is performed by software, a solid model obtained by the 3D modeling is sliced by software [0116-0122 — The 3D geometry of the 3D shape, can be sliced in parallel to the build plate 315. Multiple slice planes, such as slice plane 320 can be defined to form discrete layers of the 3D shape along a direction associated with the manufacturing process; 0184-0188 — data processing apparatus 1100 includes various software modules… These can include executable and/or interpretable software programs or libraries, including tools and services of one or more 3D modeling programs 1104 that implement the filtering systems and techniques described above] and a printing path is generated [0056-0057, 0092 — the modified 3D shape can be provided for generation of toolpath specifications for an additive manufacturing machine to use the generatively designed 3D shape of the modeled object. At least a portion of the physical structure (or a mold for the physical structure) can be manufactured with the additive manufacturing machine using the toolpath specifications].
But the combination of Weiss, Benjamin and Newman fails to clearly specify 3D modeling is performed by Rhino software, a solid model obtained by the 3D modeling is sliced by Cura software.
However, Cheng teaches 3D modeling is performed by Rhino software, a solid model obtained by the 3D modeling is sliced by Cura software [page 3272 — Cura software is used to process the data and set the 3D printing process parameters… Rhino modeling software can be used to complete the 3D model; page 3275 — Table 1 shows key parameters of Cura slicing software.].
Weiss, Benjamin, Newman and Cheng are analogous art. They relate to additive manufacturing systems.
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 simply substitute the Rhino and Cura software of Cheng for the software of Weiss and Benjamin, for the predictable result of a method of design and manufacturing using Rhino and Cura software.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Weiss teaches a method for integrated design and additive manufacturing of a support-free truss structure, Benjamin teaches performing node merging to obtain an optimized geometric result and Newman teaches performing crossed-component processing to obtain an optimized geometric result.
None of these references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose a step S1.1, inputting design conditions and parameters: inputting a design domain size, material tensile-compressive strength, a load case and a boundary constraint (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), and specifying a grid density, a component length threshold of an initial base structure, a self-supporting critical angle and a molding direction in an optimization process;
S1.2, building the minimum connection base structure: performing a discretization process on a design domain by using a uniform dot matrix, and connecting any two nodes to form the minimum connection base structure, wherein a set of components whose lengths do not exceed the component length threshold of the initial base structure is referred to as the initial base structure, and a set of components whose lengths exceed the component length threshold of the initial base structure is referred to as a potential component set;
S1.3, screening components: calculating a cosine value of an angle between a direction of each component and the molding direction, wherein if the cosine value of the angle is greater than a sine value of the self-supporting critical angle, the component meets the overhang angle constraint, and no additional support is added in a printing process; and screening out components that do not meet the overhang angle constraint in the initial base structure and in the potential component set;
S1.4, establishing the layout optimization model: establishing a balance matrix B between internal forces and loads of the components and a layout optimization mathematical model, and with a minimum total volume of a truss structure as an objective function, deriving the layout optimization model, wherein in the layout optimization model, a relative displacement of a i-th component is u.sub.i, a length of the i-th component is l.sub.i, and a pseudo strain
PNG
media_image1.png
188
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
S1.5, component addition and iterative solution: calculating a pseudo strain of each component in the potential component set, and sorting the potential component set according to a violation degree of the pseudo strain of each component relative to a pseudo strain calculated in the expression (1); selecting Kadd components with relatively large violation degrees from the potential component set to be added to a base structure of the layout optimization model, solving a new layout optimization model, and iteratively performing above steps for many times until all components in the potential component set are added to the layout optimization model, and the expression (1) is met, as recited in claim 2, or
that a step S2 comprises:
S2.1, extracting the result of the layout integrated optimization: based on the result of layout integrated optimization, setting different component filtering thresholds, screening out components with too small cross-sectional areas, and merging repetitive components, as an initial solution of a geometry optimization model;
S2.2, node merging and structure simplifying: setting a node merging threshold, merging adjacent node in groups and simplifying nodes in each group to a center point of the group;
S2.3, building the geometry optimization model: based on the layout optimization model, introducing node coordinate variables, constraining a movement range and an overhang angle of each node, and with the minimum total volume of the truss structure as an objective function, building the geometry optimization model;
S2.4, crossed-component processing: repeating steps S2.2 to S2.3 until the optimization result meets a constraint condition definition expression (4), detecting crossings among components in the structure, forming new nodes at the crossings among the components, and dividing original components into a plurality of components according to the new nodes; and solving a geometry optimization model again for the model after the crossed-component processing, to obtain the optimization result, wherein if a total volume change of the structure of the model before and after optimization solution is less than a predetermined limit value, it is determined that the crossed-component processing is successful, and a new result is outputted directly, otherwise an original result is outputted, as recited in claim 5.
Dependent claim 3-4 and 6 are definite, further limiting, and fully enabled by the specification and depend on claims 2 or 5.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colvin et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200361153 discloses a method for determining and optimizing manufacturing of an object by additive manufacturing involving minimizing support volume.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights