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 Objections
The following deficiencies need to be addressed by the applicant:
Claim 2, “file of a preset setting type” does not clearly identify the file type of format. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to overcome this deficiency;
Claim 2, “extracts a type of an object” does not clearly define what is meant by “type of an object” or how the number of files determines the type. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to overcome this deficiency;
Claim 13, “the output” in the phrase “washes the output” lacks clear antecedent basis and creates ambiguity as to which “output” is being washed;
Claim 14, “the output” in “cures the output” lacks clear antecedent basis and creates ambiguity as to which “output” is being cured;
Claim 15, “the output” in “dries the output” lacks clear antecedent basis and creates ambiguity as to which “output” is being dried;
Claim 16, the phrase “output of an output from the 3D printer” is grammatically confusing as it is unclear as to what the controlled object actually is intended to be. For examination purposes, this claim is interpreted to correspond to “allows a management device to control at least one of an output from the 3D printer, separation of the output from a base plate, removal of resin on the output, and transfer of the output between devices.”
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beraud, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0202621 A1 (hereinafter: ‘621) in view of Stadlmann, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0402211 A1 (hereinafter: ‘211).
As per claim 1, this claim is considered to be the apparatus counterpart to the method of claim 17. That being said, the rejections and rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 17 are incorporated herein and are applied accordingly.
As per claim 3, this claim is considered to be the apparatus counterpart to the method of claim 18. That being said, the rejections and rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 18 are incorporated herein and are applied accordingly.
As per claim 9, this claim is considered to be the apparatus counterpart to the method of claim 19. That being said, the rejections and rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 19 are incorporated herein and are applied accordingly.
As per claim 10, (‘621’s combined system) ‘621 in view of ‘211 adequately discloses a feature whereby the processor extracts the schedule according to divided operation information and operation time of the post- processing equipment and a travel time between pieces of the post-processing equipment (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to planning when each post-processing machine runs by considering each steps time and the time needed to move parts between machines; See ‘211; [0036] which discloses extracting a schedule for controlling post-processing equipment, [0061] which discloses the schedule being generated based on divided operation information and operation time of post-processing equipment, and [0062] which discloses accounting for travel time between pieces of post-processing equipment in the scheduling).
As per claim 12, ‘621’s combined system adequately discloses a feature whereby the processor transmits the parameter to the post-processing equipment, and the post-processing equipment performs post-processing processes according to the parameter (e.g., See ‘211; [0023], which discloses a processor outputting control values or signals to post processing equipment to command the post processing equipment to perform the operations represented by the control values or signals; e.g., controlling the drive unit to advance the part through post-processing steps).
As per claim 13, ‘621’s combined system further discloses that the processor controls at least one of a washing temperature, a washing time, a washing flow rate, and transfer of an output of the washing device that washes the output (e.g., See ‘211; [0023], which discloses transfer of the part with respect to the washing device).
As per claim 14, ‘621’s combined system further discloses that the processor controls at least one of the quantity of light, a curing time, and transfer of an output of the curing device that cures the output (e.g., See ‘211; [0023], which discloses radiation intensity and/or exposure time influencing the final properties after exposure).
As per claim 15, ‘621’s combined system further discloses that the processor controls at least one of a drying temperature, a drying time, an air volume, and transfer of an output of the drying device that dries the output (e.g., See ‘211; [0023] disclosing transfer of the part through post-processing stations; also see [0031], which discloses the utilization of drip off or evaporation times).
As per claim 16, ‘621’s combined system further discloses that the processor controls a management device that manages the output to control at least one of output of an output from the 3D printer, separation of the output from a base plate, removal of resin on the output, and transfer of the output between devices (e.g., See ‘211; [0006] disclosing that after printing, the 3D body must be cleaned and finally post processed; also see [0023] disclosing transfer of the part through post-processing stations).
As per claim 17, ‘621 discloses a method comprising:
a processor analyzing a computer-aided design (CAD) file to extract basic information of a product (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to receiving a CAD file and determining “part data” from it; See ‘621; [0006] and [0008]);
the processor analyzing a slicing file to extract output analysis information (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to reading a slicing file and pulling out printing or building details from it; See ‘621; [0066] – [0067] and [0069]); and
the processor extracting output feature information on the basis of the basic information and the output analysis information (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to combining design details and print data to determine features of the part; See ‘621; [0068] – [0069]).
However, ‘621 does not specifically disclose the processor analyzing the output feature information to extract a parameter for controlling post-processing equipment, or that the processor controls the post-processing equipment according to the parameter.
In analogous art, however, ‘211 discloses these features (e.g., See ‘211 teaching analyzing characteristics of a printed body during post-processing to determine and set process parameters and to automatically control post-processing equipment based on those parameters; See [0018] – [0019] disclosing the processing unit analyzing sensed information to determine and output process parameters; also [0028] disclosing the comparison of analyzed information to expected values and the setting of parameters; also [0036], which discloses adapting movement speed, pr process time of post-processing equipment based on the analyzed information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have incorporated the automated post-processing parameter determination and control taught by ‘211 into the output feature information (e.g., geometry, features and slicing derived building characteristics) extracted from CAD and the slicing data, as taught by ‘611, in order to automate post-processing based on known characteristics of the printed product, thereby improving reliability, efficiency and consistency of post-processing operations.
As per claim 18, ‘621’s combined system (‘621 in view of ‘211) further discloses that the output feature information is at least one of a product size, a product shape, a product volume, a number of products, and a filling level (e.g., See ‘621; [0040] disclosing product volume).
As per claim 19, ‘621’s combined system further discloses that, in the controlling of the post- processing equipment, the processor analyzes the output feature information to extract the parameter, extracts a schedule for controlling operation of the post-processing equipment according to the parameter, and controls the post-processing equipment according to the schedule and the parameter (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to making a timed plan for the post processing machines and running them in accordance with that plan; See ‘621; [0069] and [0070]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘621 in view of ‘211, as applied to claim 3, from above, and further in view of Driegen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. U.S. 2018/0253857 A1 (hereinafter: ‘857).
As per claim 4, ‘621’s combined system (‘621in view of ‘211) does not specifically disclose analyzing an outermost point of the product to extract the product size.
In analogous art, ‘857 discloses this feature (e.g., See ‘857; [0074] – [0076]).
As per claim 5, ‘621’s combined system does not specifically disclose imaging the product in various ways to extract the product shape using an image processing method.
In analogous art, ‘857 discloses this feature (e.g., See ‘857; [0008] – [0010] and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘857 into ‘621’s combined system for the purpose of automatically measuring part size and shape from images to improve accuracy, reduce manual measurements, and enable consistent, automated selection of post-processing parameters without manual inspection.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘621 in view of ‘211, as applied to claim 3, from above, and further in view of Gonzalez et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0095418 A1 (hereinafter: ‘418).
As per claim 7, ‘621’s combined system (‘621 in view of ‘211) fails to teach or adequately suggest a feature whereby when it is determined that the slicing file is a file of a nozzle-type 3D printer, the processor analyzes the product shape on the basis of the presence or absence of nozzle output in G-code to extract the number of products.
In analogous art, ‘418 discloses these features (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to [0006] disclosing identifying and analyzing a 3D model from a print file; [0016] disclosing the 3D model describing a plurality of objects to be created via 3D manufacturing; and [0018] disclosing extracting information form the print file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘418 into ‘621’s combined system for the purpose of quickly determining how many parts will be printed from the print file, thereby improving the overall planning, scheduling and automation of the post processing steps while reducing errors and the need for manual intervention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 8, 11 and 20 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.
As per claim 2, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a feature whereby the processor converts the CAD file into a file of a preset setting type, extracts a type of an object to be output on the basis of a number of files in the CAD file, and analyzes the slicing file to determine whether the slicing file is a file of a nozzle-type 3D printer or a file of an optical 3D printer, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a feature whereby the processor extracts the product volume by performing integration on an area between layers of the product on the basis of point, line, and surface information of the product, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a feature whereby the processor extracts the filling level using the product volume, the number of products, and a total output material usage for all outputs, and extracts the total output material usage using amounts of materials used in the product, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a feature whereby the parameter includes at least one of a washing device parameter for controlling a washing device, a curing device parameter for controlling a curing device, and a drying device parameter for controlling a drying device, wherein the washing device parameter includes at least one of a temperature, an operating time, and a flow rate of the washing device, the curing device parameter includes at least one of the quantity of light and an operating time of the curing device, and the drying device parameter includes at least one of a temperature, an operating time, and an air volume of the drying device, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a feature whereby the parameter includes at least one of a washing device parameter for controlling a washing device, a curing device parameter for controlling a curing device, and a drying device parameter for controlling a drying device, wherein the washing device parameter includes at least one of a temperature, an operating time, and a flow rate of the washing device, wherein the curing device parameter includes at least one of the quantity of light and an operating time of the curing device, and wherein the drying device parameter includes at least one of a temperature, an operating time, and an air volume of the drying device, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 20150045928 A1, which discloses using design and print settings to pick slicing parameters automatically, then slicing the model and sending the instructions to the printer;
(2) US 20170036401 A1, which discloses removing leftover powder from printed parts using controlled rotation, vibration airflow and a control system to run the cleaning process;
(3) US 20210206096 A1, which discloses an automated washing system that can monitor resin concentration to clean printed resin parts efficiently; and
(4) US 20130248491 A1, which discloses equipment and methods for removing support material from 3D printed parts, helping automate a common post processing step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (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 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 December 27, 2025
/RDH/