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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 07/13/2026.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are currently pending.
Claim 1 is independent claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this office action:
‘Tuning the Center of Gravity of 3D Printed Artifacts’ by Mert Keles and Ulas Yaman (which has a release date of 11/15/2018), referred to as Keles and Yaman herein.
Hakkaku et al. (US 11.639,030 B2, which has a priority date of 02/03/2017), referred to as Hakkaku herein.
Lin et al. (US 10,073,424 B2, which has a priority date of 05/13/2015), referred to as Lin herein.
Kobayashi et al. (US 10,232,554 B2, which has a priority date of 06/17/2015), referred to as Kobayashi herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keles and Yaman in view of Hakkaku.
Regarding Claim 1, Keles and Yaman teaches a manufacturing method of a three-dimensional object for manufacturing the three-dimensional object by extruding a modeling material from an extruding unit toward a stage and depositing layers, (“Using the generated file, artifacts are printed on a desktop FFF printer.” (Abstract), disclosing the fundamental FFF/FDM process where a modeling material (thermoplastic filament) is extruded from a nozzle (extruding unit) and deposited layer-by-layer onto a build platform to create a three-dimension object);
the manufacturing method comprising: acquiring designation information including information for designating a center-of-gravity position of the three-dimensional object, (“the desired center of gravity and the amount of extra material available are entered by the user” (Abstract) and Fig 1 displays “Additional mass” and “New CoG”, implying the user provides input where they want the center of gravity to be located);
information for designating a weight of the three-dimensional object, (“the desired center of gravity and the amount of extra material available are entered by the user” (Abstract) and Fig 1 displays “Additional mass” and “New CoG”, implying the user provides input specifying how much additional material can be added (which directly relates to the total weight of the object). Additionally, “mass of the initial voxelized geometry and the mass to be added to adjust the center is known” (2.2., pg. 374), meaning the amount of mass (which directly corresponds to weight in term of 3D printing) is a required user designated input);
Keles and Yaman do not teach information for designating a priority between the center of gravity position of the three-dimensional object and the weight of the three- dimensional object.
However, Hakkaku teaches and information for designating a priority between the center-of-gravity position of the three-dimensional object and the weight of the three- dimensional object; (“After the weight and the center of gravity are set by the manipulator, the control PC 14 calculates a difference between the weight corresponding to the original data and the weight that has been set.” “After the weight of the shaped object 50 is matched with the setting weight by determining the shape and the number of clearances and the filler to be used, the direction of the center of gravity is adjusted by adjusting or selecting the position at which the clearance is formed,” (Col 14, line 52 – Col 15, line 30), disclosing that where a weight designation and a center of gravity designation are both provided, it was known to resolve them according to a fixed order of precedence. This means fulfilling the weight designation first, then adjusting toward the center of gravity designation second, within the constraints already fixed by the weight matching step. Applying this known order of precedence technique to Keles and Yaman's center of gravity designation and material amount or weight designation discloses information for designating a priority between the two. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Keles and Yaman teaches generating model data including information on a path of the extruding unit with respect to the stage and information on an extruding amount of the modeling material in the path based on the designation information; (“At the end of the design process, filling percentages of some voxels is altered which made the structure internally heterogeneous. Then the final structure is directly sliced and the trajectories are converted to G-codes” (Abstract) and “Lastly, direct slicing algorithm is run to obtain the G-codes to fabricate the final geometry with the modified interior structure.” (2.1., pg. 373), disclosing that the system generates G-code defining the toolpath and extrusion amount by varying voxel filling percentages based on the designated center of gravity position and designated material amount(weight). In the combination, this filling percentage determination is performed according to Hakkaku's weight first then center of gravity order of precedence, such that the resulting model data is generated based on the full designation information, including the designated priority, not center of gravity alone);
Keles and Yaman teaches and controlling the extruding unit based on the model data and fabricating the three-dimensional object. (“Using the generated file, artifacts are printed on a desktop FFF printer.” (Abstract), meaning the FFF printer executes the G-codes to control the extruding unit and fabricate the object. Additionally, Fig 5 shows the result of the fabrication, demonstrating that the method results in an actual physical three-dimensional object being created. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Hakkaku's known order of precedence technique to resolve a weight and a center of gravity designation by first allocating material to exactly satisfy the higher priority target and then adjusting, within that fixed allocation, to approach the second lower priority target into Keles and Yaman's voxel based internal fill algorithm, together with adding a corresponding designation input by which the user selects which of the two targets is to govern. Thereby, applying Hakkaku's known weight then center of gravity resolution sequence to Keles and Yaman's digital voxel-based design representation in place of Hakkaku's own physical clearance placement mechanism and outputting the resulting internal structure as G-code in the same manner already taught by Keles and Yaman.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a center of gravity target and a weight target, when independently designated for the same object, cannot always be exactly satisfied simultaneously. This a problem Hakkaku itself identifies and resolves through a fixed order of precedence, confirming it as a recognized issue in the art with a known solution. A person of ordinary skill, aware of only two possible ways to resolve that conflict, that is satisfying weight first or satisfying center of gravity first, would have found it obvious to try each of these finite, predictable options and to make that choice explicitly selectable by the user, rather than fixed choice since both Keles and Yaman and Hakkaku already solicit multiple designated inputs through a comparable user interface. Implementing Hakkaku's demonstrated resolution technique within Keles and Yaman's voxel-based framework and exposing it as a user selectable designation, would have yielded predictable result of the object more reliably meeting whichever target the user identifies as controlling.
Regarding Claim 2, Keles and Yaman teaches the designation information includes information for designating a weight distribution of the three-dimensional object. (“the amount of extra material available are entered by the user and this additional material is distributed to the voxels by our developed algorithm so that the center of gravity of the final artifact is at the predefined location. At the end of the design process, filling percentages of some voxels is altered which made the structure internally heterogeneous.” (Abstract) and “the goal includes a change in the gravitational properties…. focuses on strength to weight ratio efficiency.” (1. Intro, pg. 372), meaning the user designates how much material to add (which affects weight), and the algorithm distributes this material non-uniformly across different voxels by altering their filling percentages. This non-uniform distribution of material masses throughout the object constitutes a weight distribution. The user’s input of the desired center of gravity position inherently specifies where weight should be concentrated (i.e., the weight distribution needed to achieve that center of gravity), making this designation information for weight distribution).
Regarding Claim 6, Keles and Yaman teaches adjusting at least one of a condition of an infill filling rate, a condition of a fill pattern, a condition of a line width, a condition of a depositing pitch, and a condition of the modeling material based on the designation information and determining a model data generation condition, (given the conditional limitation of this claim, Keles & Yaman’s algorithm adjusts at least two of the listed conditions. First, an infill filling rate, “At the end of the design process, filling percentages of some voxels is altered which made the structure internally heterogeneous.” (Abstract) and “the desired center of gravity and the amount of extra material available are entered by the user and this additional material is distributed to the voxels by our developed algorithm so that the center of gravity of the final artifact is at the predefined location.” (Abstract), directly varying the filling percentage of individual voxels based on the user designated center of gravity position and weight input. Second, a condition of a fill pattern, “bounding box of the geometry is divided into voxels by using Voronoi components and Voronoi cells are intersected with the boundary representation of the geometry.” (2.2., pg. 374), by employing a specific Voronoi-based internal structural pattern to determine how material is distributed throughout the object interior. Both of these adjustments are made based on the designation information, the user designated center of gravity coordinates and designated amount of additional material. And this designation information constitutes the model data generation conditions that govern how the G-code will be generated);
wherein the model data is generated based on the model data generation condition in generating the model data. (“Then the final structure is directly sliced and the trajectories are converted to G-codes. (Abstract) and “Lastly, direct slicing algorithm is run to obtain the G-codes to fabricate the final geometry with the modified interior structure.” (2.1., pg. 373), meaning after the model data generation conditions are determined in the design phase, the algorithm directly uses these conditions as the basis for generating the G-code (model data). The G-code then encodes both the toolpath, and the extrusion amounts that embody these generation conditions).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keles and Yaman in view of Hakkaku further in view of Lin.
Regarding Claim 3, Keles and Yaman teaches calculating at least one of the center-of-gravity position and the weight of the three-dimensional object based on the model data, (“the mass and the CoG of the voxelized geometry are calculated.” (2.1., pg. 373) and “mass of the initial voxelized geometry and the mass to be added to adjust the center is known in the form of total length of the lines to be printed. By summing up them, total mass of the final geometry is determined.” (2.2., pg. 374), meaning after the model is divided into voxels, the algorithm computes the center of gravity position and the mass (weight) from this voxelized model data. This satisfies the conditional limitation of the claim since both are disclosed);
Keles and Yaman, and Hakkaku do not explicitly teach correcting the model data or generating new model when a calculated value and a value designated in the designation information deviate from each other by a predetermined value or more.
However, Lin teaches and correcting the model data or generating new model data when a calculated value and a value designated in the designation information deviate from each other by a predetermined value or more. (“During a 3D print, a closed-loop feedback system can be used to dynamically alter the 3D print profile 400 and print parameters in response to sensor input. This serves to increase the print success rate by reducing deviation for the optimized print profile.” (Col 6, line 5-10) and “the fault analysis 124 can continually improve the model analytics 122 and the resulting 3D print profiles 150.” (Col 6, line 33-51), meaning that the model analytics can be improved through iterative parameter correction when deviation is detected. This satisfies the conditional limitation of the claim since both are disclosed).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lin's iterative error checking and correction technique into the Keles and Yaman, and Hakkaku combination such that the system calculates the center of gravity position and/or weight from the generated model, compares the calculated value to the corresponding designated value, corrects the model data when the deviation exceeds a predetermined threshold, and iterates until convergence.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the fabricated object to satisfy both a designated weight and a designated center of gravity position according to an established order of precedence, in regard to Hakkaku. Regarding Lin, to ensure accuracy of the final printed object and improve the print success rate, as Lin teaches that closed loop correction serves to "increase the print success rate by reducing deviation for the optimized print profile" (Col 6, line 8-10). Setting a predetermined tolerance threshold for convergence is a routine design choice within the skill of an ordinary artisan.
Claim(s) 4 - 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keles and Yaman in view of Hakkaku further in view of Kobayashi.
Regarding Claim 4, Keles and Yaman teaches calculating at least one of the center-of-gravity position and the weight of the three-dimensional object based on the model data, (“the mass and the CoG of the voxelized geometry are calculated.” (2.1., pg. 373) and “mass of the initial voxelized geometry and the mass to be added to adjust the center is known in the form of total length of the lines to be printed. By summing up them, total mass of the final geometry is determined.” (2.2., pg. 374), meaning after the model is divided into voxels, the algorithm computes the center of gravity position and the mass (weight) from this voxelized model data. This satisfies the conditional limitation of the claim since both are disclosed);
Keles and Yaman, and Hakkaku do not explicitly teach displaying the calculated value on a display unit.
However, Kobayashi teaches and displaying a calculated value on a display unit. (“the arrangement determining apparatus 100 may be provided with a preview function to display the target object model 72 on which the supports 30 are attached and arranged, before object formation. When this is the case, the arrangement determining apparatus 100 includes a display screen 98 and a display processor 64…..” (Col 16, line 29-32) and Fig. 7 shows the “Display Processor” (64) connected to “Display Screen” (98), meaning the system calculates the center of gravity of a three-dimensional model at step S102 and then presents the resulting calculated output to the user through a dedicated display screen, thereby allowing the user to perceive and verify the calculated results before object formation. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display teaching of Kobayashi with the Keles and Yaman, and Hakkaku combination such that the system displays the calculated center of gravity position and weight value on a display unit after computing it from the model data.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to verify that the algorithm correctly computed the center of gravity position and weight in accordance with their designated inputs, as Kobayashi teaches that displaying calculated results allows the user to perceive the target object in advance of formation (Col 17, line 12-21), thereby enabling the user to confirm accuracy and make corrections before committing to fabrication. Additionally, it is well known skill in the art to provide visual feedback of calculated values. Therefore, combining well known display teaching of Kobayashi with the center of gravity calculation method of Keles and Yaman, and Hakkaku would allow users to verify calculated center of gravity and weight values prior to print execution.
Regarding Claim 5, while Keles and Yaman, and Hakkaku teaches the claim limitations of claim 1, it does not teach the limitations of claim 5.
However, Kobayashi teaches comparing a distance between the center-of-gravity position designated by the designation information and the stage when the three-dimensional object is disposed in a first orientation relative to the stage and the distance when the three-dimensional object is disposed in a second orientation different from the first orientation relative to the stage, (Fig 8 shows the arrangement determining apparatus evaluates the target object model in a reference position and orientation at step S103, then tilts the target object model at step S105, and further rotates the target object model at step S106, thereby placing the three-dimensional object in at least a first orientation (S103) and a second orientation (S105-S106) relative to the stage. Additionally, “the reference point setting processor 61 draws a perpendicular line from the center of gravity 74 of the target object model 72, calculated by the center-of-gravity calculating processor 56, toward the placement surface 82…..The reference point 86 is the closest point to the center of gravity 74 among the points on the placement surface 82.” (Col 14, line 45-60), thereby measuring and comparing the distance between the center of gravity position and the stage across multiple orientations. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Kobayashi also teaches wherein the model data in one of the orientations in which the distance is smaller is generated in generating the model data. (“The placement surface determining processor 60 determines a bottom surface of the target object model 72 that has been rotated, to be the placement surface.” (Col 14, line 18-20), thereby specifically selecting the orientation in which the reference point 86 is the closest point on the placement surface to the center of gravity resulting in the smallest center of gravity to stage distance. Additionally, “The three-dimensional printing apparatus 10A forms the target object 70 and the supports 30 with the orientation of the target object 70 as well as the shape, thickness, and position arrangement of the supports 30 in accordance with the selected whole object model.” (Col 17, line 1-5), meaning the model data is generated and fabrication is based on the selected orientation which has smaller center of gravity to stage distance).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the multi-orientation comparison and selection teaching of Kobayashi with the Keles and Yaman, and Hakkaku combination such that the system compares the distance between the designated center of gravity position and the stage across a first and second orientation, and generates the model data for the orientation with the smaller distance.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the stability of the object during fabrication, as a lower center of gravity relative to the build stage reduces bending moment and tipping risk during deposition ("This reduces the bending moment to the load of the target object 70." Col 17, line 40-41). Therefore, incorporating Kobayashi’s orientation comparison and selection technique into Keles and Yaman, and Hakkaku will result in a more stable print that is less prone to failure during fabrication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDNI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm, every other Friday off.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571)272-3644. 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.
/CHANDNI PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights