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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 01/30/2026:
Claims 1, 3-15, and 17-19 are pending.
Claims 2 and 16 are cancelled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macy (US20230109495), and further in view of Becker et al. (US20160176115).
Regarding claim 1, Macy teaches a three-dimensional object printing apparatus (system
100; Figure 3) comprising:
a head unit ([0051] Representing more recent systems, FIG. 2 depicts three tool head
assemblies coupled to transverse beam 125; see extruder head 150, filament extruder nozzle
261, and multi-axis machining head 262 in Figure 3) including a head (extruder head 150,
filament extruder nozzle 261, and multi-axis machining head 262; Figure 3) that ejects a liquid
([0044]) toward a workpiece ([0038] Build plate 130 may refer to either a direct surface for
initiating additive builds or may be topped with an intermediary sheet of material or a chemical
coating. Accordingly, build plate 130 may also be referred to herein as a ‘build surface’
especially in reference to the topmost surface of the build plate plus any intermediary materials
placed on top of it) along a first axis (first axis is to be interpreted as the z-axis);
a sensor unit (Auto-Z probe as shown as 302,304,306 in Figure 3) including a sensor
(switch 450 in Figure 4B; [0063]- [0064]); and
a movement mechanism (multi-axis motion control system 120; Figure 3) that changes
positions of the head unit and the sensor unit with respect to the workpiece ([0038] The motion
control componentry combined with extruder head 150 constitute an additive manufacturing
system, that is, a form of 3D printer. Multi-axis motion control system 120 as shown creates
movement along three orthogonal axes in an arrangement known as a Cartesian coordinate
system wherein any point within the build space is referenced by a unique triplet of scalar
values corresponding to displacement along three mutually orthogonal axes); and
a movement control section (control box 160; Figure 1) that controls the movement
mechanism ([0045] To accomplish the formation of a solid object in three dimensions upon the
build plate 130 from extruded materials emanating from the tip of nozzle 158, a control box
160 is provided with electronics, such as a microprocessor and motor drive circuitry, which is coupled to the X, Y and Z motors as has been described above, as well as to numerous sensors
and heating elements, in the system 120), wherein the movement mechanism includes:
a first movement mechanism ([0072], see Figure 6(b) and Figure 6(d)) that changes the position of the sensor unit with respect to the workpiece along the first axis ([0074]),
a second movement mechanism (motor 122a, 122b; Figure 3) that changes the position of the head unit with respect to the workpiece along the first axis ([0040] motors 122A, 122B and their respective columns 123A, 123B may use a similar arrangement of linear guides, bearings and lead screws such that Z-axis motors 122A, 122B controllably move extruder head 150 in a vertical direction, that is, closer to or further away from build plate 130), and
a third movement mechanism (X-axis motor 124; Figure 1) that moves a movable body (carriage 151, carriage 251, carriage 252; Figure 2), to which the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism are attached (first movement mechanism is attached to carriage 151 that is attached to transverse beam 125 which is then attached to X-axis motor 124 by rotation of a shaft on the motor, motors 122a, 122b are attached to X-axis motor 124 through transverse beam 125 as shown in Figure 2), along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis, thereby changing positions of the head unit and the sensor unit with respect to the workpiece along the second axis ([0039] Extruder head 150 is shown to be attached to a carriage 151 that is controllably moved along the long axis of transverse beam 125 by the rotation of the shaft of an X-axis motor 124. Typically, beam 125 will comprise one or more linear bearings facilitating the smooth movement of carriage 151 parallel to the long axis of beam 125),
the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism move the sensor
unit and the head unit independently of each other (see sensor unit independently moved from
head unit in Figure 6(b)- Figure 6(d)),
the movement control section performs a confirmation operation (calibration process
shown in Figure 8A-8C) and a printing operation ([0071] Condition (a) represents the ‘normal’
circumstance wherein no calibration activities are under way and the respective tool head
(extruder head 150) is either idle or is actively extruding material to form a part, with the Auto-
Z probe retracted as not to interfere with the build process nor impede any flow of cooling air
or cover gas being directed towards the nozzle or workpiece),
the confirmation operation being an operation in which the third movement mechanism
moves the movable body along the second axis ([0091] Upon commencing process 800 with step 802, execution immediately proceeds to step 804 whereupon coarse homing of all motor-driven axes is performed so that, with open loop systems that employ stepping motors, the
displacement along an axis of motion at any point in time is determined by keeping count of the
number of movement pulses that have been issued to the respective motor. Generally
speaking, the act of ‘homing’ often involves moving slowly in a given direction until a limit
switch detects when the moving stage has very nearly reached the end of its range of travel,
and then declaring that location to be the ‘zero’ point from which all other positional offsets
are measured and [0093] After the coarse homing activities of step 804, step 806 is undertaken
to assure that the bed or build surface is ‘flat’ and essentially level. ‘Flatness’ usually means that
the bed is not warped and is acceptably planar. Levelness, more so than with respect to gravity,
really means that the plane of the bed is parallel with a plane defined as the motion system
moves in XY while maintaining a constant Z coordinate; also see steps 810 and 822 where nozzle is moved to align directly above TCP sensor in process 800 shown in Figure 8A) and the
first movement mechanism changes the position of the sensor unit with respect to the
workpiece along the first axis in a state in which the head does not eject the liquid ([0093] In
the present context exemplified by FIG. 3, step 806 may involve extending an Auto-Z probe and
utilizing its ability to detect of bed contact (see FIG. 6—condition (d)) as the means for taking Z-
wise measurements at a variety of XY locations; also see steps 812 and 820 in process 800 in
Figure 8A), and
the printing operation being an operation which is performed after the confirmation
operation ([0071], [0124]) and in which the third movement mechanism moves the movable
body along the second axis in a state in which the head ejects the liquid ([0039] and [0003]
Generally, the process of building a solid object begins with moving the nozzle to within close
proximity to the build plate and then moving the nozzle parallel to the build plate as material is
extruded from the nozzle. This motion in parallel with the planar build is typically regarded as
being in ‘X’ and ‘Y’ directions according to a Cartesian coordinate system), and
the movement control section acquires path information indicating a path along which the head is moved in the printing operation ([0134] PC 1210 may run applications that accomplish such 3D design as well as other software that ‘slices’ an object model to yield a layer-wise sequence of G-code for controlling the motion axes via real-time controller 1220. In some implementations, PC 1210 may be capable of directly communicating with real-time controller 1220 and causing motion to occur responsive to instructions originating from PC 1210).
However, Macy fails to teach the movement control section moves, in the confirmation operation, the sensor along a path indicated by the path information, and determines whether the path indicated by the path information is valid based on the path information and a detection result of the sensor in the confirmation operation.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Becker teaches a confirmation operation where a movement control section moves a printhead along a path indicated by the path information, and
determines whether the path indicated by the path information is valid based on the path information ([0035] . An exemplary print nozzle 52 is moved along a section 56 of a predetermined movement path in a direction 54. In this section there are no significant deviations of the real movement path to the desired predetermined movement path. The “x” 60 show respective coordinates according to object data of the robot program where a respective portion of a print material has to be applied. Since there is no deviation of the print nozzle 54 in the section 56 of the predetermined movement path, a respective portion of print material will be applied by the print nozzle 52 when passing the respective coordinates 60) and a detection result of the sensor in the confirmation operation ([0034]). The confirmation operation of Becker enables for potential deviations to be corrected and improves the accuracy of the printing operation ([0016] This enables for example the possibility to correct potential deviations of the actual position of the print nozzle by a respective adapted orientation of the print nozzle. Thus the over-redundancy of the degrees of freedom in movement of an industrial robot is used to improve its accuracy in an advantageous way).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the movement control section of Macy move, in the confirmation operation, the sensor of Macy along a path indicated by the path information, and determine whether the path indicated by the path information is valid based on the path information and a detection result of the sensor in the confirmation operation, as taught by Becker, for the benefit of correcting potential printing deviations that improves the accuracy of the printing operation.
Regarding claim 3, Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Macy teaches wherein when a distance between the head and the workpiece in the direction along the first axis is a head distance, and a distance between the sensor and the
workpiece in the direction along the first axis is a sensor distance (see Figure 6(d)),
Further, Macy teaches a coarse homing of all motor-driven axes is performed (step 804
in Figure 8; [0091]) followed by a step that ensures the build surface is essentially levelled
where a sensor contacts the build surface (step 806 in Figure 8; [0093]). The head can be
moved along the first axis direction by motors 122A and 122B ([0040]) and the sensor can travel
up to 7 inches, which converts to around 178 mm, during the levelling operation ([0057] The
Auto-Z probe comprises a pneumatic actuator 401, such as Model M-027-NR made by Bimba
Ltd. which exhibits a 7-inch overall stroke).
While Macy is silent to the first axis dimensions along which the print heads travel, one
of ordinary skill would be motivated to have the average value of the head distances during the
confirmation operation be larger than an average value of the sensor distances during the
confirmation operation to have the carriages 151 and 251, and therefore the sensors, close
enough to the build surface such that the sensor’s actuator range of 0 -178 mm will be able to
measure a sensor distance and, therefore, a head distance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention for the movement control section of Macy modified with Becker to control the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism in such a way that an average value of the head distances during the confirmation operation is larger than an average value of the sensor distances during the confirmation operation, as suggested by Macy, to allow for the sensors to get close enough to the build surface such that the sensor’s actuator range of 0 -178 mm will be able to measure a sensor distance and, therefore, a head distance.
Regarding claim 4, modified Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 1.
While Macy is silent to the first axis dimensions along which the print heads travel, one
of ordinary skill would be motivated to have the amount of change in head distance during the
confirmation operation be larger than an amount of change in sensor distance during the
confirmation operation to have the carriages 151 and 251, and therefore the sensors, close
enough to the build surface such that the sensor’s actuator range of 0 -178 mm will be able to
measure a sensor distance and, therefore, a head distance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention for the movement control section of Macy modified with Becker to control the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism in such a way that an amount of change in head distance during the confirmation operation is larger than an amount of change in sensor distance during the confirmation operation, as suggested by Macy, to allow for the sensors to get close enough to the build surface such that the sensor’s actuator range of 0 -178 mm will be able to measure a sensor distance and, therefore, a head distance.
Regarding claim 5, modified Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Macy teaches wherein when a distance between the head and the workpiece in the direction along the first axis is a head distance (see Figure 6(d)).
While Macy is silent to the dimensions over which the movement control section
controls the second movement mechanism, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have an
average value of the head distances during the confirmation operation be larger than an
average value of the head distances during the printing operation to have the carriages 151 and
251, and therefore the sensors, close enough to the build surface such that the sensor’s
actuator range of 0 -178 mm will be able to measure a sensor distance and, therefore, a head
distance. Further, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have the average value of the
head distances during the confirmation operation be larger than an average value of the head
distances during the printing operation to avoid the nozzle being pressed too close to the build
surface such that extruded material is splattered outward or even blocked from extrusion
([0005] the nozzle may be pressed so close to the build plate that extruded material is
splattered outward as it leaves the nozzle tip or may even be blocked from extruding if the
nozzle is forced into contact with (or gouges into) the build surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention for the movement control section of modified Macy modified with Becker to control the second movement mechanism in such a way that an average value of the head distances during the confirmation operation is larger than an average value of the head distances during the printing operation to have the carriages 151 and 251, and therefore the sensors, close enough to the build surface such that the sensor’s actuator range of 0 -178 mm will be able to measure a sensor distance and, therefore, a head distance. Further, relatively smaller average head distances during the printing operation would avoid the nozzle from being pressed too close to the build surface such that extruded material is splattered outward or even blocked from extrusion.
Regarding claim 6, modified Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 5.
While Macy is silent to the first axis dimensions along which the print heads travel, one
of ordinary skill would be motivated to have the amount of change in head distance during the
confirmation operation be larger than an amount of change of the head distances during the
printing operation to have the carriages 151 and 251, and therefore the sensors, close enough
to the build surface such that the sensor’s actuator range of 0 -178 mm will be able to measure
a sensor distance and, therefore, a head distance. Further, one of ordinary skill would be
motivated to have the average value of the head distances during the confirmation operation
be larger than an average value of the head distances during the printing operation to avoid the
nozzle being pressed too close to the build surface such that extruded material is splattered
outward or even blocked from extrusion ([0005] the nozzle may be pressed so close to the build
plate that extruded material is splattered outward as it leaves the nozzle tip or may even be
blocked from extruding if the nozzle is forced into contact with (or gouges into) the build
surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention for the movement control section of modified Macy modified with Becker to control the second movement mechanism in such a way that the amount of change in head distance during the confirmation operation be larger than an amount of change of the head distances during the printing operation to have the carriages 151 and 251, and therefore the sensors, close enough to the build surface such that the sensor’s actuator range of 0 -178 mm will be able to measure a sensor distance and, therefore, a head distance. Further, relatively smaller average head distances during the printing operation would avoid the nozzle from being pressed too close to the build surface such that extruded material is splattered outward or even blocked from extrusion.
Regarding claim 7, modified Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein when the distance between the sensor and the workpiece in the direction along the first axis is the sensor distance (see Figure 6(d)).
While Macy is silent to the first axis dimensions along which the print heads travel, one
of ordinary skill would be motivated to have the movement control section control the first
movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism in such a way that an average
value of the sensor distances during the printing operation is substantially the same as an
average value of the head distances during the printing operation to avoid the sensor from
colliding with workpieces during the printing operation ([0094] deploying Auto-Z probe to make
contact with the bed, so an acceptable location will likely be one that ensures that the probe
can reach the bed without having any parts of carriage(s) colliding with other objects, such as
partially built workpieces resting on the bed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention for the movement control section of modified Macy modified with Becker control the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism in such a way that an average value of the sensor distances during the printing operation is substantially the same as an average value of the head distances during the printing operation, as suggested by Macy, since one of ordinary skill would want to avoid the sensor from colliding with workpieces during the printing operation.
Regarding claim 8, modified Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 3.
Further, Macy teaches wherein when the distance between the sensor and the workpiece in the direction along the first axis is the sensor distance (see Figure 6(d)), the movement control section controls the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism in such a way that the average value of the sensor distances during the confirmation operation is larger than an average value of the sensor distances during the
printing operation (the sensor distances during the confirmation operation will be up to the
working range of around 178 mm or up to when the sensor probe end reaches the build surface
while during the printing operation the sensor will not change its distance, since the probing
operation does not occur during the printing operation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Macy modified Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein when a distance between the sensor and the workpiece in the direction along the first axis is a sensor distance (see Figure 6(d)).
While Macy is silent to the first axis dimensions along which the print head and sensor
unit travel with the second movement mechanism, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to
have the movement control section control the second movement mechanism in such a way
that an average value of the sensor distances during the confirmation operation is smaller than
an average value of the sensor distances during the printing operation in instances when the
sensor is closer to the workpiece and would require smaller distances to measure the distance
to the workpiece during the confirmation operation such that workpiece collision with the print
head is avoided, and when the sensor is further away from the workpiece during the printing
operation and moves with the print head through the second movement mechanism to perform a build operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention for the movement control section of modified Macy modified with Becker control the second movement mechanism in such a way that an average value of the sensor distances during the confirmation operation is smaller than an average value of the sensor distances during the printing operation, since one of ordinary skill would want to avoid the print head from colliding with workpieces during the confirmation operation.
Regarding claim 10, modified Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein when a distance between the sensor and the workpiece in the direction along the first axis is a sensor distance (see Figure 6 (d)), and an average value of the sensor distances during the confirmation operation is larger than an
average value of the sensor distances during the printing operation (the sensor distances during
the confirmation operation will be up to the working range of around 178 mm or up to when
the sensor probe end reaches the build surface while during the printing operation the sensor
will not change its distance, since the probing operation does not occur during the printing
operation).
While Macy teaches the movement control section controls an operation amount of the
movement mechanisms ([0091] the displacement along an axis of motion at any point in time is
determined by keeping count of the number of movement pulses that have been issued to the
respective motor), Macy is silent to the operation amount of the second movement mechanism
during the confirmation operation being smaller than an operation amount of the second
movement mechanism during the printing operation.
Given that a three-dimensional object printing apparatus tends to spend more time
building a workpiece than calibrating its components, it would have been obvious before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention for the operation amount of the second movement
mechanism of modified Macy modified with Becker during the confirmation operation to be smaller than an operation amount of the second movement mechanism during the printing operation, since the confirmation operation takes less time than the printing operation and, therefore, the operation amount of the second movement mechanism during the confirmation operation would be smaller given the shorter amount of time which the second movement mechanism is controlled during the confirmation operation.
Regarding claim 11, Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 1. Further, Macy teaches wherein the sensor includes a contact sensor ([0063]- [0064]) that detects contact with the workpiece ([0074] Condition (d) shows the lowered probe coming into contact with the bed or build surface in accordance with a procedure that will be outlined in connection with process 800).
Regarding claim 12, Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 11. Further, Macy teaches wherein the sensor further includes a distance sensor ([0063]- [0064]) that detects a distance to the workpiece ([0074] Condition (d) shows the lowered probe coming into contact with the bed or build surface in accordance with a procedure that will be outlined in connection with process 800).
Regarding claim 13, Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 11. Further, Macy teaches wherein the head has a nozzle surface in which nozzles that eject the liquid are formed (the end of the filament extruder nozzle 261 from which liquid is ejected has a circular surface as shown in Figure 3) , the contact sensor has a distal end that define a distal end region, and an outer shape of the distal end surface or the distal end region is substantially the same as an outer shape of the nozzle surface (distal end surface of probe 304 has a circular surface as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 6(a)- Figure 6(d). Therefore, both the distal end surface of probe 304 and end of filament extruder nozzle 261 have a circular shape).
Regarding claim 15, Macy teaches a control method (process 800; Figure 8A- Figure 8C)
for controlling a three-dimensional object printing apparatus including
a head unit ([0051] Representing more recent systems, FIG. 2 depicts three tool head assemblies coupled to transverse beam 125; see extruder head 150, filament extruder nozzle 261, and multi-axis machining head 262 in Figure 3) including a head (extruder head 150, filament extruder nozzle 261, and multi-axis machining head 262; Figure 3) that ejects a liquid
([0044]) toward a workpiece ([0038] Build plate 130 may refer to either a direct surface for initiating additive builds or may be topped with an intermediary sheet of material or a chemical
coating. Accordingly, build plate 130 may also be referred to herein as a ‘build surface’
especially in reference to the topmost surface of the build plate plus any intermediary materials
placed on top of it) along a first axis (first axis is to be interpreted as the z-axis),
a sensor unit (Auto-Z probe as shown as 302,304,306 in Figure 3) including a sensor that
detects a positional relationship with respect to the workpiece (switch 450 in Figure 4B; [0063]-
[0064]),
a first movement mechanism ([0072], see Figure 6(b) and Figure 6(d)) that changes a
position of the sensor unit with respect to the workpiece along the first axis ([0074]), and
a second movement mechanism (motor 122a, 122b; Figure 3) that changes a position of
the head unit with respect to the workpiece along the first axis ([0040] motors 122A, 122B and
their respective columns 123A, 123B may use a similar arrangement of linear guides, bearings
and lead screws such that Z-axis motors 122A, 122B controllably move extruder head 150 in a
vertical direction, that is, closer to or further away from build plate 130), and
a third movement mechanism (X-axis motor 124; Figure 1) that moves a movable body
(carriage 151, carriage 251, carriage 252; Figure 2) that moves a movable body (carriage 151,
carriage 251, carriage 252; Figure 2), to which the first movement mechanism and the second
movement mechanism are attached (first movement mechanism is attached to carriage 151
that is attached to transverse beam 125 which is then attached to X-axis motor 124 by rotation
of a shaft on the motor, motors 122a, 122b are attached to X-axis motor 124 through transverse beam 125 as shown in Figure 2), along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis,
thereby changing positions of the head unit and the sensor unit with respect to the workpiece along the second axis ([0039] Extruder head 150 is shown to be attached to a carriage 151 that
is controllably moved along the long axis of transverse beam 125 by the rotation of the shaft of
an X-axis motor 124. Typically, beam 125 will comprise one or more linear bearings facilitating
the smooth movement of carriage 151 parallel to the long axis of beam 125),
the control method comprising:
moving, by the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism, the
sensor unit and the head unit independently of each other (see sensor unit independently
moved from head unit in Figure 6(b)- Figure 6(d)),
a confirmation operation (calibration process shown in Figure 8A-8C) in which the third
movement mechanism moves the movable body along the second axis ([0091] Upon
commencing process 800 with step 802, execution immediately proceeds to step 804
whereupon coarse homing of all motor-driven axes is performed so that, with open loop
systems that employ stepping motors, the displacement along an axis of motion at any point in
time is determined by keeping count of the number of movement pulses that have been issued
to the respective motor. Generally speaking, the act of ‘homing’ often involves moving slowly in
a given direction until a limit switch detects when the moving stage has very nearly reached the
end of its range of travel, and then declaring that location to be the ‘zero’ point from which all
other positional offsets are measured and [0093] After the coarse homing activities of step 804,
step 806 is undertaken to assure that the bed or build surface is ‘flat’ and essentially level.
‘Flatness’ usually means that the bed is not warped and is acceptably planar. Levelness, more
so than with respect to gravity, really means that the plane of the bed is parallel with a plane
defined as the motion system moves in XY while maintaining a constant Z coordinate; also see steps 810 and 822 where nozzle is moved to align directly above TCP sensor in process 800
shown in Figure 8A) and the first movement mechanism changes the position of the sensor unit
with respect to the workpiece along the first axis in a state in which the head does not eject the
liquid ([0093] In the present context exemplified by FIG. 3, step 806 may involve extending an
Auto-Z probe and utilizing its ability to detect of bed contact (see FIG. 6—condition (d)) as the
means for taking Z-wise measurements at a variety of XY locations; also see steps 812 and 820
in process 800 in Figure 8A), and
a printing operation ([0071] Condition (a) represents the ‘normal’ circumstance wherein
no calibration activities are under way and the respective tool head (extruder head 150) is
either idle or is actively extruding material to form a part, with the Auto- Z probe retracted as
not to interfere with the build process nor impede any flow of cooling air or cover gas being
directed towards the nozzle or workpiece) in which the third movement mechanism moves the
movable body along the second axis in a state in which the head ejects the liquid ([0039] and
[0003] Generally, the process of building a solid object begins with moving the nozzle to within
close proximity to the build plate and then moving the nozzle parallel to the build plate as
material is extruded from the nozzle. This motion in parallel with the planar build is typically
regarded as being in ‘X’ and ‘Y’ directions according to a Cartesian coordinate system),
acquiring path information indicating a path along which the head is moved in the printing operation ([0134] PC 1210 may run applications that accomplish such 3D design as well as other software that ‘slices’ an object model to yield a layer-wise sequence of G-code for controlling the motion axes via real-time controller 1220. In some implementations, PC 1210 may be capable of directly communicating with real-time controller 1220 and causing motion to occur responsive to instructions originating from PC 1210).
However, Macy fails to teach the movement control section moves, in the confirmation operation, the sensor along a path indicated by the path information, and determines whether the path indicated by the path information is valid based on the path information and a detection result of the sensor in the confirmation operation.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Becker teaches a confirmation operation where a movement control section moves a printhead along a path indicated by the path information, and
determines whether the path indicated by the path information is valid based on the path information ([0035] . An exemplary print nozzle 52 is moved along a section 56 of a predetermined movement path in a direction 54. In this section there are no significant deviations of the real movement path to the desired predetermined movement path. The “x” 60 show respective coordinates according to object data of the robot program where a respective portion of a print material has to be applied. Since there is no deviation of the print nozzle 54 in the section 56 of the predetermined movement path, a respective portion of print material will be applied by the print nozzle 52 when passing the respective coordinates 60) and a detection result of the sensor in the confirmation operation ([0034]). The confirmation operation of Becker enables for potential deviations to be corrected and improves the accuracy of the printing operation ([0016] This enables for example the possibility to correct potential deviations of the actual position of the print nozzle by a respective adapted orientation of the print nozzle. Thus the over-redundancy of the degrees of freedom in movement of an industrial robot is used to improve its accuracy in an advantageous way).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the movement control section of Macy move, in the confirmation operation, the sensor of Macy along a path indicated by the path information, and determine whether the path indicated by the path information is valid based on the path information and a detection result of the sensor in the confirmation operation, as taught by Becker, for the benefit of correcting potential printing deviations that improves the accuracy of the printing operation.
Regarding claim 17, Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Further, Becker teaches wherein the movement control section determines whether the path indicated by the path information is valid by determining whether a difference between (i) a path based on the detection result of the sensor in the confirmation operation, and (ii) the path indicated by the path information is within a predetermined range ([0036] The respective coordinates according to object data of the robot program where a respective portion of a print material has to be applied are marked in this section with a “+” 64. The respective real section 58 of the movement path is differing from the desired one. Due to a too large difference of the respective coordinates no portion of print material will be applied at the respective coordinates 64 according to object data of the robot program).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the movement control section of Macy modified with Becker determine whether the path indicated by the path information is valid by determining whether a difference between (i) a path based on the detection result of the sensor in the confirmation operation, and (ii) the path indicated by the path information is within a predetermined range, as taught by Becker, for the benefit of correcting potential printing deviations that improves the accuracy of the printing operation.
Regarding claim 18, Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Further, Becker teaches wherein when the path indicated by the path information is determined not to be valid, the movement control section prevents the printing operation ([0036] Due to a too large difference of the respective coordinates no portion of print material will be applied at the respective coordinates 64 according to object data of the robot program).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the movement control section of Macy modified with Becker prevent the printing operation when the path indicated by the path information is determined not to be valid, as taught by Becker, for the benefit of correcting potential printing deviations that improves the accuracy of the printing operation.
Regarding claim 19, Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Further, Becker teaches wherein the path indicated by the path information extends along a surface of the workpiece ([0035] FIG. 2 shows a first exemplary movement path with coordinates 60, 64 for applying print material in a sketch 50. An exemplary print nozzle 52 is moved along a section 56 of a predetermined movement path in a direction 54) such that a position of the head with respect to the workpiece in the direction along the first axis varies ([0014] According to an embodiment of the invention the industrial robot respectively its arm comprises at least six robot members with six degrees of freedom in movement. If a robot arm comprises six degrees of freedom in movement, it is possible to reach each point within its working space in every orientation) as a movable body moves along the second axis ([0031] Furthermore the robot is movable along a seventh axis 38, as indicated with the arrow 42; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the path information of Macy modified with Becker extend along a surface of the workpiece such that a position of the head with respect to the workpiece in the direction along the first axis varies as the movable body moves along the second axis, as taught by Becker, for the benefit of correcting potential printing deviations that improves the accuracy of the printing operation.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macy et al.
(US20230109495) and Becker et al. (US20160176115), and further in view of Arao et al. (JP2020131700- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 14, Macy modified with Becker teaches the three-dimensional object printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Further, Macy teaches material deposited out of the print head typically solidifies to form a 2D pattern ([0003] softened plastic forced out of the nozzle tip as it moves adheres to the build plate and solidifies to form a 2D pattern of solid material exactly corresponding to where the nozzle has traveled). However, Macy fails to teach wherein the sensor unit further includes an energy emission section that emits light that cures or solidifies the liquid on the workpiece.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a three-dimensional object printing
apparatus, Arao teaches a sensor unit further includes an energy emission section that emits light that cures or solidifies the liquid on the workpiece (see Figure 29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for
the sensor unit of Macy modified with Becker to further include an energy emission section that emits light, as taught by Arao, to promote the solidification of the deposited liquid of Macy modified with Becker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/30/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743