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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The term “likelihood” in claims 4, 11 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likelihood” is not defined by the claim, the specification 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. There is no boundary of the terms and specification is silent regarding the terms and dependent claims did not clarify the terms. Dependent claims also rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preston et al. USPGPUB 20210370398 A1 (hereinafter “Preston”) in view of Marinkovich et al. USP 12511630 B2 (hereinafter “Marinkovich”).
As to claim 1, Preston teaches a computer-implemented method for dynamically modifying print code (paragraph 0006-0007 “method of printing an object following fabrication and printing of an initial object. A first object may be printed at a 3D printer based on an initial model of an object”), the method comprising, comprising: tracking print data associated with a printing operation against a set of desired specifications (paragraph 0091 and FIG. 6A-B “Following printing, the object 612 (as a green part) may undergo further processing as described above, including debinding and sintering, to produce a finished object”); identifying a defect in the printing operation based on the tracked print data (paragraph 0062-0063 “imaging techniques may be used to detect and measure layer-to-layer interfaces, aggregate part dimensions, diagnostic information (e.g., defects, voids) and so forth. This data may be gathered and delivered with the object to an end user as a digital twin 140 of the object 112 so that the end user can evaluate whether and how variations and defects might affect use of the object 112”); generating remediating g-code alterations based on the identified defect and the set of desired specifications (paragraph 00099-0101 “modifying an object model, the tool path for a printed object (e.g., a G-code instruction set) may be modified in a comparable manner to incorporate compensations for defects of the build plate 605”); generating a first digital twin corresponding to the set of desired specifications, and a second digital twin corresponding to the generated remediating g-code alterations (paragraph 0100-0102 “a model of an object (e.g., the 3D model 122 or digital twin 140 described above with reference to FIG. 1) may be modified to incorporate one or more compensations comparable to those described above, directing the printer to print the object with compensation for the defects 691, 692. For example, the object model may be repositioned or reoriented, or the geometry of the model may be modified (e.g., with portions of greater or lesser feedstock deposition) to compensate for the defects 691, 692 when printing the object” and paragraph 0062-0064); and leveraging the generated remediating g-code alterations to resume the rebased paused printing operation (paragraph 0100-0104 “alternative to modifying an object model, the tool path for a printed object (e.g., a G-code instruction set) may be modified in a comparable manner to incorporate compensations for defects of the build plate 605”).
Preston does in response to identifying the defect associated with the printing operation, pausing the printing operation; rebasing the paused printing operation based on the generated remediating g-code alterations and the first and second digital twins.
Marinkovich teaches response to identifying the defect associated with the printing operation, pausing the printing operation (col. 525 lines 6-60 “configuration system 12018 may release only portions of the job execution plan 12310 to the job execution system 12022 so that unreleased portions can be adapted; thereby mitigating impacts on the job execution system, such as requiring work to be halted, delayed, or otherwise impaired while updates to the execution plan are made”); rebasing the paused printing operation based on the generated remediating g-code alterations and the first and second digital twins (col. 525 line 36- col. 526 line 60 “updates to the execution plan are made” and col. 535 line 65-col. 536 line 65).
Preston and Marinkovich are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to additive manufacturing system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above additive manufacturing system, as taught by Preston, and incorporating defect associated with the printing operation, pausing the printing operation, as taught by Marinkovich.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling or predicting object attributes like depth, orientation, and motion; recognizing tiny objects; recognizing facial features; recognizing objects in a power constrained or network constrained environment, and other use cases for which traditional machine vision systems and methods are poorly suited, as suggested by Marinkovich (col. 4 lines 6-33).
As to claim 2, the combination of Preston and Marinkovich teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Preston further teaches wherein tracking the print data associated with the printing operation against the set of desired specifications further comprises: leveraging a series of sensors associated with the printing operation, the series of sensors including one or more internal printer sensors, external sensors, and data feeds (paragraph 0056-0057 “control components associated with the build process such as temperature sensors, pressure sensors, oxygen sensors, vacuum pumps, and so forth”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Preston and Marinkovich teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Preston further teaches wherein identifying the defect in the printing operation based on the tracked print data further comprises: comparing the tracked print data to the desired set of specifications to identify any deviations or errors (paragraph 0096-0099 “determined that those defects may introduce errors into the object printing, a print configuration may be updated to avoid or compensate for those errors (825)”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Preston and Marinkovich teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Preston further teaches further comprising: calculating a score corresponding to a likelihood of successfully salvaging the printing operation (paragraph 0099-0102 “print configuration may define a restricted area to encompass the defects 691, 692 in the build plate 605, thereby preventing the assembly 600 from printing any portion of an object at the defects 691, 692. The print configuration may also be updated to modify the location and/or orientation of a reference plane (e.g., a plane in which a layer of an object, such as the first layer, is to be print) to compensate for a slope in the build plate 605. Such a modified plane may be referred to as an offset plane. The configuration of the motion system (e.g., robotics controlling the assembly 600) may also be modified”).
As to claim 5, the combination of Preston and Marinkovich teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Preston further teaches further comprising: terminating the print operation in response to the calculated score being below a predetermined threshold value (paragraph 0119-0124 “comparison against threshold parameters (e.g., extent or severity of the error) to disregard errors for which corrective action”).
As to claim 6, the combination of Preston and Marinkovich teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Preston further teaches further comprising: outputting the calculated score to a user interface; and receiving manual input, via the user interface, to remediate or terminate the printing operation (paragraph 0061-0069 “process 200 may include providing a build material including an injection molding material, or where a support interface is being fabricated, a MIM binder (e.g., a MIM binder with similar thermal characteristics)”).
As to claim 7, the combination of Preston and Marinkovich teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Preston further teaches wherein the printing operation comprises a 3D printing operation (abstract “build plate of a 3D printer and an object as it is being printed to generate image data” and FIG. 1).
Claims 8-14 has similar limitations as of claims 1-7 are rejected with same rational.
Claims 15-20 has similar limitations as of claims 1-6 are rejected with same rational.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Preston et al USPGPUB 2018/0297114 an additive manufacturing to improve the fidelity of a printed object. The camera may scan the surface of a build plate of a 3D printer and an object as it is being printed to generate image data. The image data is processed to detect errors in the build plate or printed object. The printer compensates for the detected errors, which can including modifying the printer configuration and/or modifying the instructions for printing a given object. Using the updated configuration, subsequent objects may then be printed, under a corrected process, to produce an object with fidelity to an original object model.
DehghanNiri et al. USPGPUB 2018/0101167 teaches a method for in-process monitoring of a 3D manufacturing apparatus or quality control of a 3D manufactured structure is provided. The method includes a generating step that generates an acoustic wave in the 3D manufactured structure. A receiving step receives the acoustic wave with a microphone array. An analyzing step analyzes a frequency spectrum of the acoustic wave. A determining step determines if the frequency spectrum indicates a defect in the 3D manufactured structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119