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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the solid image" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that a solid image is recited in claim 8, however claim 9 depends on claim 7, which does not recite a solid image.
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) 1-9, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0102679). Regarding Claim 1, Greene et al., hereafter “Greene,” show that it is known to carry out a method for processing a slice image for 3D printing (Abstract; 0005), comprising acquiring a slice image of a three-dimensional model, including grayscale compensation parameters and a size adjustment value (0005, 0029, 0031); determining a size adjustment according to the slice image (0034, 0036); determining a grayscale compensation process according to the size adjustment (0039); and respectively performing grayscale processing on edge pixels of a contour in the slice image according to the grayscale compensation parameter, wherein the processed slice image is used for 3D printing (0040, 0043-0044, 0053-0054). Greene discloses various determination and computation steps which take into consideration grayscale and other values such as size, as noted above, but he does not specifically describe a relationship between a grayscale compensation parameter and a size adjustment value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there would be an implicit relationship between grayscale compensation and size values, as claimed, because these process variables would be needed for Greene’s process/adjustment calculations.
Regarding Claim 2, Greene shows the method of claim 1 above, including processing more than one voxel/pixel (0036).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Greene shows the method of claim 2 above, including one wherein a slice shape is identified and contour identification is performed on the slice shape (0029-0030).
Regarding Claim 4, Greene shows the method of claim 3 above, including one comprising enveloping the shape in a rectangular frame/image blocks (Figure 3; 0030-0033).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Greene shows the method of claim 3 above, including one wherein contour is identified as it relates to shape (0034).
Regarding Claim 7, Greene shows the method of claim 6 above, including one which comprises identifying inner/outer (3d) contours as it relates to slice size (0034, 0036: X, Y, Z dimensions included).
Regarding Claim 8, Greene shows the method of claim 7 above, including one which comprises identifying a solid image in each slice shape (0045-0050).
Regarding Claim 9, Greene shows the method of claim 7 above, including one wherein the solid image is configured to directly mold a printing product (0045).
Regarding Claim 15, Greene shows the method of claim 1 above, including one further comprising controlling a light projector and performing mask compensation on a projection image (0054).
Regarding Claim 16, Greene shows the method of claim 1 above, including one further comprising controlling the light projector (0007: curve is held to be implicit in the control process).
Regarding Claim 17, Greene shows the method of claim 1 above, including one comprising performing different grayscale superposition in pixels as desired (0043-0044, 0053-0054).
Regarding Claim 18 Greene shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the size adjustment value is enlargement/reduction (0036).
Regarding Claim 19, Greene shows that it is known to have a storage medium, storing a program that is executable by a processor (0057-0059), wherein, when being executed by the processor, the program executable by the processor is configured to carry out the following actions: acquiring a slice image of a three-dimensional model, including grayscale compensation parameters and a size adjustment value (0005, 0029, 0031); determining a size adjustment according to the slice image (0034, 0036); determining a grayscale compensation process according to the size adjustment (0039); and respectively performing grayscale processing on edge pixels of a contour in the slice image according to the grayscale compensation parameter, wherein the processed slice image is used for 3D printing (0040, 0043-0044, 0053-0054). Greene discloses various determination and computation steps which take into consideration grayscale and other values such as size, as noted above, but he does not specifically describe a relationship between a grayscale compensation parameter and a size adjustment value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there would be an implicit relationship between grayscale compensation and size values, as claimed, because these process variables would be needed for Greene’s process/adjustment calculations.
Regarding Claim 20, Greene shows that it is known to have a system for processing a slice image for 3D printing, comprising a printing unit and a computer device connected to the printing unit (0022, 0058-0061), wherein the printing unit is configured to print a three-dimensional model according to an instruction (0055-0057), the computer device comprises at least one processor, at least one memory configured to store at least one program, wherein the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor (0058-0059), the at least one processor is enabled to implement the following actions: acquiring a slice image of a three-dimensional model, including grayscale compensation parameters and a size adjustment value (0005, 0029, 0031); determining a size adjustment according to the slice image (0034, 0036); determining a grayscale compensation process according to the size adjustment (0039); and respectively performing grayscale processing on edge pixels of a contour in the slice image according to the grayscale compensation parameter, wherein the processed slice image is used for 3D printing (0040, 0043-0044, 0053-0054). Greene discloses various determination and computation steps which take into consideration grayscale and other values such as size, as noted above, but he does not specifically describe a relationship between a grayscale compensation parameter and a size adjustment value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there would be an implicit relationship between grayscale compensation and size values, as claimed, because these process variables would be needed for Greene’s process/adjustment calculations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742