DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 11/07/2023.
Claim(s) 1-15 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-15 are pending.
- Claim(s) 9 and 15 has/have been indicated to include allowable subject matter over prior art(s).
- Claim(s) 1-8, and 10-15 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 11/07/2023, and 04/22/2024 has/have been considered by examiner.
A reference mentioned in the IDS has been utilized by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that this application makes reference to or claims benefit from U.S. provisional application no 63/423,215 filed 11/07/2022.
Specification
The disclosure filed 11/07/2023 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/07/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by examiner for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 11-15 is/are objected to due to having minor informalities:
Claim 1 in L1 recites: “… an (AM) component …”, which uses acronym(s) “AM component” without first introducing the term(s) – this is considered as a typographical error in light of the review of specification, 0012 that describes, “an additive manufactured (AM) component”.
Claim 11 in L1 recites: “The AM component of claim 9, …”, which is considered as an inadvertently caused typographical error in light of how the other claim set (the process claim set) is written. Examiner will read it as “The AM component of claim 10, …”.
Claim(s) 12-15 recite in each of their first line, “The method of claim 10, …”, which is considered as an inadvertently caused typographical error as claim 10 is not a process claim. Examiner will read each of these as “The AM component of claim 10, …”.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4:
The phrase “height ranging from about 0.005 inches to about 0.010 inches” in Lines 2-3, is/are relative term(s) which render(s) the claim indefinite. This/these term(s) is/are not defined by the claim, the specification (such as the example provided in 0031) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To promote compact prosecution, any degree of the number or measurement for this/these term(s) found in the prior art(s) would be considered appropriate.
Claim 15:
The phrase “witness line region” in Lines 1-4, and 7-8, lacks antecedent basis, which render(s) the claim indefinite. Claim 15 depends from claim 10 and this phrase is not part of claim 10 either.
To promote compact prosecution, examiner has interpreted claim 10’s textured witness lines to be part of at least one witness line region (similar to claim 1 language that is referred back to claim 9).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy (US 20140271221 A1) in view of Susnjara (US 20220055260 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Soucy teaches:
A method of manufacturing an (AM) component, the method comprising: (0002, 0011 etc. teach additive manufacturing process; Fig. 3, 0022 etc. teach additive manufacturing process 100.)
… determining at least one target machining area on the target AM component, the at least one target machining area designated to receive a machining process; (0011 teaches, “a witness mark provides a visual indicator that can be used to determine where the part should be separated from the support structure.”; Similarly, claim 13 teaches, “witness mark”, and 0016 teaches, "witness mark between support structure 20 and airfoils 30A-30D to provide a visual indicator showing where the two parts can be separated, as seen in FIGS. 2A-2B.". Here, the separation area is therefore the target machining area.)
determining at least one witness line region corresponding to the at least one target machining area of the component; (As above; Also see 0006 teaches, “The witness mark is identified. The object is separated from the support structure along the witness mark.” Fig. 2A and 0017 teach witness marks 40; claim 13: "witness mark created between the support structure and the object", "identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark.")
and performing an AM component build to build the AM component and form a plurality of textured witness lines in the at least one witness line region. (Fig. 2A and 0017 teach witness marks 40 – for example, see the two curved witness lines as in the witness mark 40A (i.e., region) in Fig. 2A, where 40A, 40B, and 40C are the exemplary witness line regions; Also see 0020 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Claim 13 teaches, "manufacturing a support structure with an additive manufacturing process; manufacturing an object on top of and connected to the support structure with an additive manufacturing process, wherein there is a witness mark created between the support structure and the object; identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark.")
While Soucy implicitly teaches below by teaching an additive manufacturing system and process used to build a variety of components as a single solid piece which would require construction in multiple parts using traditional manufacturing processes (as in 0022, claim 13, etc.),
Soucy does not explicitly disclose:
generating a computer-aided design (CAD) model of target AM component;
Susnjara explicitly teaches:
generating a computer-aided design (CAD) model of target AM component; (abstract, 0001-03 teach the generation of CAD model of target manufactured component. More specifically, see 0001 teaches, “fabricating components (such as, e.g., automobile parts, medical devices, machine components, consumer products, etc.) via additive manufacturing techniques or processes, which may be referred to as 3D printing manufacturing techniques or processes.” 0003 then teaches, “Additive manufacturing techniques may be used to fabricate simple or complex components from a wide variety of materials. For example, a freestanding object can be fabricated from a computer-aided design (CAD) model.”)
Accordingly, as Soucy and Susnjara are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models, as taught by Susnjara to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing as taught by Soucy. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known improved way of performing freeform fabrication, 3D printing, rapid prototyping/tooling, etc. utilizing CAD model, as evident in Susnjara, abstract, 0001-03, etc.
Regarding claim 2, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 1.
Soucy and Susnjara further teach:
wherein the plurality of textured witness lines have a three-dimensional physical profile. (Soucy: Fig. 2A and 2B illustrate the 3D profile of the witness marks 40A-40D; 0021 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Susnjara: As above, CAD model is taught in 0003, which is considered as the physical profile here.)
Accordingly, motivation to combine the teachings would have been dictated by the similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 3, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 2.
Soucy further teaches:
wherein the plurality of textured witness lines protrude from a surface of the AM component. (Fig. 2A and 2B illustrate the witness marks 40A-40D protruding from a surface; 0020 teaches, “This will create witness marks 40A-40D by forming a small ledge between support structure 20 and airfoils 30A-30D.” 0043 also teaches, “The witness mark is a ledge that projects outwards and defines the proximate end of the object.”)
Regarding claim 10, Soucy teaches:
An additive manufactured (AM) component comprising: (0002, 0011 etc. teach forming a witness mark on a component manufactured with an additive manufacturing process; Fig. 3, 0022 etc. teach additive manufacturing process 100.)
a target machining area designated to receive a machining process; (0011 teaches, “a witness mark provides a visual indicator that can be used to determine where the part should be separated from the support structure.”; Similarly, claim 13 teaches, “witness mark”, and 0016 teaches, "witness mark between support structure 20 and airfoils 30A-30D to provide a visual indicator showing where the two parts can be separated, as seen in FIGS. 2A-2B.". Here, the separation area is therefore the target machining area.)
and a plurality of textured witness lines formed in the target machining area, the plurality of witness lines …. configured to guide machining of the AM component. (Fig. 2A and 0017 teach witness marks 40 – for example, see the two curved witness lines as in the witness mark 40A (i.e., region) in Fig. 2A, where 40A, 40B, and 40C are the exemplary witness line regions; Also see 0020 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Claim 13 teaches, "manufacturing a support structure with an additive manufacturing process; manufacturing an object on top of and connected to the support structure with an additive manufacturing process, wherein there is a witness mark created between the support structure and the object; identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark.")
While Soucy implicitly teaches below by teaching an additive manufacturing system and process used to build a variety of components as a single solid piece which would require construction in multiple parts using traditional manufacturing processes (as in 0022, claim 13, etc.),
Soucy does not explicitly disclose:
… having a three-dimensional physical profile …
Susnjara explicitly teaches:
… having a three-dimensional physical profile … (abstract, 0001-03 teach the generation of CAD model of target manufactured component. More specifically, see 0001 teaches, “fabricating components (such as, e.g., automobile parts, medical devices, machine components, consumer products, etc.) via additive manufacturing techniques or processes, which may be referred to as 3D printing manufacturing techniques or processes.” 0003 then teaches, “Additive manufacturing techniques may be used to fabricate simple or complex components from a wide variety of materials. For example, a freestanding object can be fabricated from a computer-aided design (CAD) model.” CAD model here is considered as the physical profile.)
Accordingly, as Soucy and Susnjara are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models, as taught by Susnjara to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing as taught by Soucy. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known improved way of performing freeform fabrication, 3D printing, rapid prototyping/tooling, etc. utilizing CAD model as the physical profile, as evident in Susnjara, abstract, 0001-03, etc.
Regarding claim 11, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 10 (see claim objection).
Soucy further teaches:
wherein plurality of textured witness lines protrude from a surface of the AM component. (See the claim objection above for the claim dependency; Fig. 2A and 2B illustrate the witness marks 40A-40D protruding from a surface; 0020 teaches, “This will create witness marks 40A-40D by forming a small ledge between support structure 20 and airfoils 30A-30D.” 0043 also teaches, “The witness mark is a ledge that projects outwards and defines the proximate end of the object.”)
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy (US 20140271221 A1) in view of Susnjara (US 20220055260 A1) in further view of Foundry Management & Technology (Speeds Up Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing. Article. [Online]. 2007) hereinafter Foundry.
Regarding claim 4, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 3.
Soucy further teaches:
wherein the plurality of textured witness lines extend upwards from the surface to define a height … (Fig. 2A and 2B illustrate the witness marks 40A-40D protruding from a surface; 0020 teaches, “This will create witness marks 40A-40D by forming a small ledge between support structure 20 and airfoils 30A-30D.” 0043 also teaches, “The witness mark is a ledge that projects outwards and defines the proximate end of the object.”)
While Soucy further teaches “Manufacturing an object with an additive manufacturing process includes (a) depositing a layer of a powder material on a work stage, the layer having a thickness, (b) solidifying a portion of the layer based upon data that defines a shape of an object, wherein an end of the object is connected to the support structure, and (c) lowering the work stage by the thickness. Steps (a)-(c) can be repeated until the object is complete.” (see 0051) and “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” (see 0019),
Soucy and Susnjara does not explicitly disclose:
[ … witness lines extend upwards from the surface to define a height] ranging from about 0.005 inches to about 0.010 inches.
Foundry explicitly teaches:
[ … witness lines extend upwards from the surface to define a height] ranging from about 0.005 inches to about 0.010 inches. (See 112(b) rejection above. See Foundry, at the bottom of p2 teaches, “STRATASYS' new build option increases throughput up to 50%, employing a new layer thickness, measuring 0.013 inch. This is best suited to larger geometry, where the highest resolution is not required or when faster speed is needed. FDM layer thickness options now include 0.005, 0.007, 0.010, and 0.013 inches.”)
Accordingly, as Soucy, Susnjara, and Foundry are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of build options providing various ranges of layer thickness options, such as, 0.005, 0.007, 0.010, and 0.013 inches, as taught by Foundry to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing including fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models along with forming witness lines by deposition of layer(s) of materials with certain thickness as taught by Soucy and Susnjara. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known improved way of increasing throughput in faster speed for rapid prototyping and manufacturing, as evident in Foundry, paragraph 1 in p1 and paragraph at the bottom of p2.
Regarding claim 12, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 10.
Soucy further teaches:
wherein the textured witness lines extend upwards from the surface to define a height … (Fig. 2A and 2B illustrate the witness marks 40A-40D protruding from a surface; 0020 teaches, “This will create witness marks 40A-40D by forming a small ledge between support structure 20 and airfoils 30A-30D.” 0043 also teaches, “The witness mark is a ledge that projects outwards and defines the proximate end of the object.”)
While Soucy further teaches “Manufacturing an object with an additive manufacturing process includes (a) depositing a layer of a powder material on a work stage, the layer having a thickness, (b) solidifying a portion of the layer based upon data that defines a shape of an object, wherein an end of the object is connected to the support structure, and (c) lowering the work stage by the thickness. Steps (a)-(c) can be repeated until the object is complete.” (see 0051) and “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” (see 0019),
Soucy and Susnjara does not explicitly disclose:
[ … witness lines extend upwards from the surface to define a height] ranging from about 0.005 inches to about 0.010 inches.
Foundry explicitly teaches:
[ … witness lines extend upwards from the surface to define a height] ranging from about 0.005 inches to about 0.010 inches. (See 112(b) rejection above. See Foundry, at the bottom of p2 teaches, “STRATASYS' new build option increases throughput up to 50%, employing a new layer thickness, measuring 0.013 inch. This is best suited to larger geometry, where the highest resolution is not required or when faster speed is needed. FDM layer thickness options now include 0.005, 0.007, 0.010, and 0.013 inches.”)
Accordingly, as Soucy, Susnjara, and Foundry are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of build options providing various ranges of layer thickness options, such as, 0.005, 0.007, 0.010, and 0.013 inches, as taught by Foundry to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing including fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models along with forming witness lines by deposition of layer(s) of materials with certain thickness as taught by Soucy and Susnjara. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known improved way of increasing throughput in faster speed for rapid prototyping and manufacturing, as evident in Foundry, paragraph 1 in p1 and paragraph at the bottom of p2.
Claim(s) 5-8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy (US 20140271221 A1) in view of Susnjara (US 20220055260 A1) in further view of Erickson (US 20220072773 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 2.
While Susnjara teaches CAD model-based building, hence, loading it to do so (As above, see 0002 - Additive manufacturing techniques may be used to fabricate simple or complex components from a wide variety of materials. For example, a freestanding object can be fabricated from a computer-aided design (CAD) model.), and Soucy teaches “and performing the AM build based on the build file, wherein the AM build machine forms the plurality of textured witness lines in the at least one witness line region corresponding to the at least one targeted machining area.” (Fig. 2A and 0017 teach witness marks 40 – for example, see the two curved witness lines as in the witness mark 40A (i.e., region) in Fig. 2A, where 40A, 40B, and 40C are the exemplary witness line regions; Also see 0020 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Claim 13 teaches, "manufacturing a support structure with an additive manufacturing process; manufacturing an object on top of and connected to the support structure with an additive manufacturing process, wherein there is a witness mark created between the support structure and the object; identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark."),
Soucy and Susnjara do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: generating a build file based at least in part on the CAD file, the at least one targeted machining areas, and a plurality of tool machine start/stop events for defining the plurality of textured witness lines;
Erickson explicitly teaches:
further comprising: generating a build file based at least in part on the CAD file, the at least one targeted machining areas, and a plurality of tool machine start/stop events for defining the plurality of textured witness lines; (0027 teaches, “the controller (106) may send instructions to direct the printhead to selectively deposit the agent onto the surface of a layer of the build material. The controller (106) may also direct the printhead to eject the agent at specific locations to form a 3D printed object slice.” 0008, Fig. 6, 0018, 0074, etc. teach instructions for interrupting an additive manufacturing operation, for various exemplary purposes. Also note, CAD based manufacturing in 0001, 0010, etc.)
Accordingly, as Soucy, Susnjara, and Erickson are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of CAD based instructions for tool/machine travel path including interruptions as needed, as taught by Erickson to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing including fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models along with forming witness lines in desired areas as taught by Soucy and Susnjara. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known advantageous way of having the controller, during operation, serve to provide instructions to a number of other devices associated with the additive manufacturing system to accomplish the functionality of the additive manufacturing system (in this case, forming Soucy’s witness lines in desired locations), as evident in Erickson, 0027.
Regarding claim 6, Soucy, Susnjara and Erickson teach all the elements of claim 5.
Soucy and Erickson further teach:
wherein the performing the AM build includes performing a series of AM material depositions and AM material deposition pauses to build the AM material layer-by-layer at a first target region among the at least one target region while avoiding deposition of the AM material at a second target region of the among the at least one among the at least one target region to form the textured witness lines. (Soucy: As above, see 0020 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Claim 13 teaches, "manufacturing a support structure with an additive manufacturing process; manufacturing an object on top of and connected to the support structure with an additive manufacturing process, wherein there is a witness mark created between the support structure and the object; identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark." Note, the layer creations take place by repeated material deposition as in 0050-51, claims 15-16, etc. Erickson: As above, the selective depositions with interruptions as in 0008, Fig. 6, 0018, 0027 etc. is the process considered as the pauses here with certain regions/locations avoided – note the “specific locations” in 0027.)
Accordingly, motivation to combine the teachings would have been dictated by the similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 7, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 2.
While Soucy implicitly teaches below (Fig. 2A and 0017 teach witness marks 40 – for example, see the two curved witness lines as in the witness mark 40A (i.e., region) in Fig. 2A, where 40A, 40B, and 40C are the exemplary witness line regions; Also see 0020 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Claim 13 teaches, "manufacturing a support structure with an additive manufacturing process; manufacturing an object on top of and connected to the support structure with an additive manufacturing process, wherein there is a witness mark created between the support structure and the object; identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark."),
Soucy and Susnjara do not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one witness line region is formed adjacent to a portion of the AM component designated to omit the machining process.
Erickson explicitly teaches:
wherein the at least one witness line region is formed adjacent to a portion of the AM component designated to omit the machining process. (0027 teaches, “the controller (106) may send instructions to direct the printhead to selectively deposit the agent onto the surface of a layer of the build material. The controller (106) may also direct the printhead to eject the agent at specific locations to form a 3D printed object slice.” 0008, Fig. 6, 0018, 0074, etc. teach instructions for interrupting an additive manufacturing operation, for various exemplary purposes. Here, an interruption of the additive manufacturing operation towards a selective deposition in specific locations is an ability that is considered to be equivalent to have the functionality of depositing/forming some component by machining in one location and then stopping or not machining in the next location.)
Accordingly, as Soucy, Susnjara, and Erickson are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of interruption based selective depositions in specific locations as needed, as taught by Erickson to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing including fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models along with forming witness lines in desired areas as taught by Soucy and Susnjara. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known advantageous way of having the controller, during operation, serve to provide instructions to a number of other devices associated with the additive manufacturing system to accomplish the functionality of the additive manufacturing system (in this case, forming Soucy’s witness lines in desired locations), as evident in Erickson, 0027.
Regarding claim 8, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 2.
While Soucy implicitly teaches below (Fig. 2A and 0017 teach witness marks 40 – for example, see the two curved witness lines as in the witness mark 40A (i.e., region) in Fig. 2A, where 40A, 40B, and 40C are the exemplary witness line regions; Also see 0020 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Claim 13 teaches, "manufacturing a support structure with an additive manufacturing process; manufacturing an object on top of and connected to the support structure with an additive manufacturing process, wherein there is a witness mark created between the support structure and the object; identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark."),
Soucy and Susnjara do not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one witness line region is formed adjacent to a portion of the AM component designated to receive a second machining process different from the machining processes designated for the at least one witness line region.
Erickson explicitly teaches:
wherein the at least one witness line region is formed adjacent to a portion of the AM component designated to receive a second machining process different from the machining processes designated for the at least one witness line region. (0027 teaches, “the controller (106) may send instructions to direct the printhead to selectively deposit the agent onto the surface of a layer of the build material. The controller (106) may also direct the printhead to eject the agent at specific locations to form a 3D printed object slice.” 0008, Fig. 6, 0018, 0074, etc. teach instructions for interrupting an additive manufacturing operation, for various exemplary purposes. Here, an interruption of the additive manufacturing operation towards a selective deposition in specific locations is an ability that is considered to be equivalent to have the functionality of depositing/forming some component by machining in one location (i.e., one machining process) and then stopping or not machining in the next location (i.e., another machining process that is different).)
Accordingly, as Soucy, Susnjara, and Erickson are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of interruption based selective depositions in specific locations as needed, as taught by Erickson to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing including fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models along with forming witness lines in desired areas as taught by Soucy and Susnjara. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known advantageous way of having the controller, during operation, serve to provide instructions to a number of other devices associated with the additive manufacturing system to accomplish the functionality of the additive manufacturing system (in this case, forming Soucy’s witness lines in desired locations), as evident in Erickson, 0027.
Regarding claim 13, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 10.
While Soucy implicitly teaches below (Fig. 2A and 0017 teach witness marks 40 – for example, see the two curved witness lines as in the witness mark 40A (i.e., region) in Fig. 2A, where 40A, 40B, and 40C are the exemplary witness line regions; Also see 0020 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Claim 13 teaches, "manufacturing a support structure with an additive manufacturing process; manufacturing an object on top of and connected to the support structure with an additive manufacturing process, wherein there is a witness mark created between the support structure and the object; identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark."),
Soucy and Susnjara do not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of textured witness lines are in a region adjacent to a portion of the AM component designated to omit the machining process.
Erickson explicitly teaches:
wherein the plurality of textured witness lines are in a region adjacent to a portion of the AM component designated to omit the machining process. (0027 teaches, “the controller (106) may send instructions to direct the printhead to selectively deposit the agent onto the surface of a layer of the build material. The controller (106) may also direct the printhead to eject the agent at specific locations to form a 3D printed object slice.” 0008, Fig. 6, 0018, 0074, etc. teach instructions for interrupting an additive manufacturing operation, for various exemplary purposes. Here, an interruption of the additive manufacturing operation towards a selective deposition in specific locations is an ability that is considered to be equivalent to have the functionality of depositing/forming some component by machining in one location and then stopping or not machining in the next location.)
Accordingly, as Soucy, Susnjara, and Erickson are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of interruption based selective depositions in specific locations as needed, as taught by Erickson to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing including fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models along with forming witness lines in desired areas as taught by Soucy and Susnjara. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known advantageous way of having the controller, during operation, serve to provide instructions to a number of other devices associated with the additive manufacturing system to accomplish the functionality of the additive manufacturing system (in this case, forming Soucy’s witness lines in desired locations), as evident in Erickson, 0027.
Regarding claim 14, Soucy and Susnjara teach all the elements of claim 10.
While Soucy implicitly teaches below (Fig. 2A and 0017 teach witness marks 40 – for example, see the two curved witness lines as in the witness mark 40A (i.e., region) in Fig. 2A, where 40A, 40B, and 40C are the exemplary witness line regions; Also see 0020 teaches, “Witness marks 40A-40D are formed during additive manufacturing processes.” Claim 13 teaches, "manufacturing a support structure with an additive manufacturing process; manufacturing an object on top of and connected to the support structure with an additive manufacturing process, wherein there is a witness mark created between the support structure and the object; identifying the witness mark; and separating the object from the support structure along the witness mark."),
Soucy and Susnjara do not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of textured witness lines are in a region adjacent to portion of the AM component designated to receive a second machining process different from the machining processes designated for the witness line region.
Erickson explicitly teaches:
wherein the plurality of textured witness lines are in a region adjacent to portion of the AM component designated to receive a second machining process different from the machining processes designated for the witness line region. (0027 teaches, “the controller (106) may send instructions to direct the printhead to selectively deposit the agent onto the surface of a layer of the build material. The controller (106) may also direct the printhead to eject the agent at specific locations to form a 3D printed object slice.” 0008, Fig. 6, 0018, 0074, etc. teach instructions for interrupting an additive manufacturing operation, for various exemplary purposes. Here, an interruption of the additive manufacturing operation towards a selective deposition in specific locations is an ability that is considered to be equivalent to have the functionality of depositing/forming some component by machining in one location (i.e., one machining process) and then stopping or not machining in the next location (i.e., another machining process that is different).)
Accordingly, as Soucy, Susnjara, and Erickson are directed to various data processing and control of components and processes in manufacturing systems including additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of interruption based selective depositions in specific locations as needed, as taught by Erickson to the additive manufacturing process with various data processing including fabricating simple or complex object(s) from CAD models along with forming witness lines in desired areas as taught by Soucy and Susnjara. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled a well-known advantageous way of having the controller, during operation, serve to provide instructions to a number of other devices associated with the additive manufacturing system to accomplish the functionality of the additive manufacturing system (in this case, forming Soucy’s witness lines in desired locations), as evident in Erickson, 0027.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9 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 and to correct any other objections as described herein as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
9. The method of claim 2, wherein a first witness line region among the at least one witness line region includes a first plurality of textured witness lines having a first pattern and a second witness line region among the at least one witness line region different from the first witness region includes a second plurality of textured witness lines having a second pattern different from the first pattern, and wherein the first pattern indicates a first type of machining process to be performed in the first witness line region and the second pattern indicates a second type of machining process to be performed in the second witness line region, the second type of machining process different from the first type of machining process.
Also, claim(s) 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and any other formalities set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination.
15. The method of claim 10, wherein a first witness line region among the at least one witness line region includes a first plurality of textured witness lines having a first pattern and a second witness line region among the at least one witness line region different from the first witness region includes a second plurality of textured witness lines having a second pattern different from the first pattern, and wherein the first pattern indicates a first type of machining process to be performed in the first witness line region and the second pattern indicates a second type of machining process to be performed in the second witness line region, the second type of machining process different from the first type of machining process.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Weiss et al. (US 20200013156 A1) is related to one variation of a method for monitoring manufacture of assembly units that includes: receiving selection of a target location hypothesized by a user to contain an origin of a defect in assembly units of an assembly type; accessing a feature map linking non-visual manufacturing features to physical locations within the assembly type; for each assembly unit, accessing an inspection image of the assembly unit recorded by an optical inspection station during production of the assembly unit, projecting the target location onto the inspection image, detecting visual features proximal the target location within the inspection image, and aggregating non-visual manufacturing features associated with locations proximal the target location and representing manufacturing inputs into the assembly unit based on the feature map; and calculating correlations between visual and non-visual manufacturing features associated with locations proximal the target location and the defect for the set of assembly units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on T-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights