DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 10/26/2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
- Claim(s) 10-12, and 16-17 has/have been indicated to include allowable subject matter over prior art(s) (However, other rejection(s) apply).
- Claim(s) 1-20 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 12/06/2023 has/have been considered by examiner.
Reference(s) mentioned in the IDS has/have been utilized by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that this application is a CON of PCT/US2022/026497 filed 04/27/2022. Acknowledgment is also made that PCT/US2022/026497 has PRO 63/180,971 filed 04/28/2021 and PCT/US2022/026497 also has PRO 63/180,932 filed 04/28/2021.
Specification
The disclosure filed 10/26/2023 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The paragraph 0074 in last line describes, “Based on the user selection and the 3D printer 101 identification data, the hardware abstraction layer 706 can an access a vendor’s domain repository 708, a wrapper for the vendor’s application programming interface (API) 710, and/or a G-node repository 712.”, which should be “Based on the user selection and the 3D printer 101 identification data, the hardware abstraction layer 706 can access a vendor’s domain repository 708, a wrapper for the vendor’s application programming interface (API) 710, and/or a G-node repository 712.” By omitting the “an”.
Drawings
The drawings filed 10/26/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by examiner for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 18, and 20 is/are objected to due to having minor informalities:
Claim 1 in L6 recites: “… a 3D printer …”, which uses acronym(s) “3D” without first introducing the term(s).
Similarly, claim(s) 18 and 20 also use the same acronym(s) “3D” in each limitation without first introducing the term(s).
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system (apparatus), which is a statutory category of invention.
However, claim 1 recites, “convert G-code to G-node data; generate a plurality of windows based on a plurality of G-node segments; calculate an average velocity based on the plurality of windows, wherein the velocity corresponds to a 3D printer head; determine a temperature corresponding to the average velocity; and insert a G-code heat command into a G-code command file based on the determined temperature.”. This/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step(s) of converting, for example, as described in applicant specification, 0056, Fig. 3A and Fig. 4, etc. appear to be an observation/evaluation and judgement that can be performed in the human mind (and/or written with a pen on a paper), under broadest reasonable interpretation and similar analysis is applicable to generation of windows (exemplified in specification, 0054 as data set(s) within a segment of data), calculation of average velocity and determination of a temperature respectively (exemplified in specification, 0059 as mental evaluation/calculation and looking up from a table, for example, respectively), and insertion of a command (exemplified in specification, 0060 and Fig. 5 as writing up and updating codes/commands). These/This limitation(s) therefore recite(s) concept(s) performed in the human mind. Also note, all of these steps, can be written down with a pen on a paper. Note, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer devices to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Besides the abstract ideas, claim recites additional element(s) such as “a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory including instructions such that the processor is programmed to” these are recited in a high level of generality. These are thus merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the same reasons as stated above. For example, for the claimed processor and memory - these are recited in a high level of generality. These are thus merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2-17 depend from claim 1, thus each includes the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the abstract idea where this/these limitation(s) just describe(s) the generation/determination/insertion step(s) further where a human mind is capable of evaluating and writing up a data/command on paper with a pen (insert a command (claim 2), determine the command based on a calculation (claim 3), mere description of the data type (claim 4), generation of segments (claim 5), mere description of the data type (claim 6), mere description of the data type/structure (claim 7), mere description of the data type/structure (claim 8), conditional assignment/generation of data/data structure (claims 9-12), accessing data by observation of a lookup table (claim 13), mere description of the data type of the lookup table (claims 14-17), and thus no other meaningful or significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites a system (apparatus), which is a statutory category of invention.
However, claim 18 recites, “and generate a command file based on the 3D print job data.”. This/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step(s) of generating appear to be an observation/evaluation and judgement that can be performed in the human mind (and/or written with a pen on a paper) based on some monitored data, under broadest reasonable interpretation. These/This limitation(s) therefore recite(s) concept(s) performed in the human mind. Also note, all of these steps, can be written down with a pen on a paper. Note, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer devices to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Besides the abstract ideas, claim recites additional element(s) such as “a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory including instructions such that the processor is programmed to” these are recited in a high level of generality. These are thus merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the same reasons as stated above. For example, for the claimed processor and memory - these are recited in a high level of generality. These are thus merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 depends on claim 18 and so includes the abstract idea from claim 18. Additionally, claim 19 recites, “wherein the at least one repository comprises at least one of a vendor domain repository, an application programming interface (API) wrapper repository, or a G-node repository.”, which is/are described at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), and MPEP 2106.05(h)) such as storing data to be accessed/retrieved. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 20 depends on claim 18 and so includes the abstract idea from claim 18. Additionally claim 20 recites, “wherein the command file is transmitted to a 3D printer to perform a print job according to the command file.”. Here, the limitations do not integrate the invention into a practical application because the transmitting step (using computing components recited in high level of generality) is merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taig (US 20200324482 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Taig discloses:
A system comprising a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory including instructions such that the processor is programmed to: ([0087] - "Memory 150 may store instructions that enable processor 160 to execute one or more applications or software available or executable on computer systems.'' See also exemplary [0154] – “The memory 810 may store instructions that enable processor to execute one or more applications, such as the interactive slicer and operating system, and any other type of application or software available or executable on computer systems.”)
retrieve 3D printer identification data ([0078] – “For example, slicer commands may be converted directly into machine code. For example, a specific 3D printer may be provided tailored instructions by a G-code file.” [0115] has an example: “The printing process parameters specific to the associated printer …”. See also [0154] – “Data used in the slicing process such as hierarchies, rules for portioning a model corresponding to each hierarchy, valid range for some or all of the parameters, printer configurations, printer specifications, and the like may be stored in the one or more databases.” [0165] & Fig. 12A also teach a GUI that permits a user to input parameters defining and modifying slices or segments.);
access and retrieve 3D print job data from at least one repository based on an input and the 3D printer identification data; ([0148] – “The computer may be able to receive input data from the coupled devices for analysis. … The storage unit 815 can be a data storage unit (or data repository) for storing data.”; [0154] - "Data used in the slicing process such as hierarchies, ... printer configurations, printer specifications, and the like may be stored in the one or more databases," and as above, [0165] & Fig. 12A also teach a GUI that permits a user to input parameters defining and modifying slices or segments; see also [0078] and [0101-03] for print job done upon receiving a 3D model or a job file. Besides [0115], [0113-16] provide further details and examples for user specified or adjusted parameters-based print head movement and printing process control via coding, where the printing process parameters are specific to the associated printer.);
and generate a command file based on the 3D print job data ([0078] and [0101-03] teach print job being done upon receiving a 3D model or job file. Besides these, [0113]: “The numerical control programming code can comprise, for example, G-code files and intermediate files. The G-code files may comprise one or more parameters related to rapid movement, controlled feed in an arc or straight line, series of controlled feed movements, switch coordinate systems, set of tool information and the like.” As above, [0113-16] provide further details and examples for user specified or adjusted parameters-based print head movement and printing process control via coding, where the printing process parameters are specific to the associated printer.).
Regarding claim 20, Taig discloses the system as recited in claim 18.
Taig further discloses wherein the command file is transmitted to a 3D printer to perform a print job according to the command file (para [0144] - ''For example, the interactive slicer 720 may transmit the numerical control programming code (e.g., G-Code) to the 3D printer." And as above, [0113]: “The numerical control programming code can comprise, for example, G-code files and intermediate files. The G-code files may comprise one or more parameters related to rapid movement, controlled feed in an arc or straight line, series of controlled feed movements, switch coordinate systems, set of tool information and the like.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taig (US 20200324482 A1) in view of Sisk (US 20160349738 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Taig discloses the system as recited in claim 18.
While Taig further teaches the following concept implicitly ([0154] – “Alternatively or additionally, the instructions, application programs, etc. can be stored in an internal and/or external database (e.g., a cloud storage system—not shown) that is in direct communication with computing device, such as one or more databases or memories accessible via one or more networks (not shown). The memory 810 can include one or more memory devices that store data and instructions usable to perform one or more features provided herein. The memory 810 can also include any combination of one or more databases controlled by memory controller devices (e.g., servers, etc.) or software, such as document management systems, Microsoft SQL databases, SharePoint databases, Oracle™ databases, Sybase™ databases, or other relational databases.”),
Taig does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one repository comprises at least one of a vendor domain repository, an application programming interface (API) wrapper repository, or a G-node repository.
Sisk explicitly teaches:
wherein the at least one repository comprises at least one of a vendor domain repository, an application programming interface (API) wrapper repository, or a G-node repository. (0060-61 provide examples of repository, such as, see 0061 – “… a user can elect to share the customized article/object with others (e.g., via the internet). In some embodiments, in response to a user ordering an article/object, the print/order management server coordinates the printing of the article/object using the user modified script file (e.g., stored on the data server). The user modified script file can be utilized to print the article/object on any printer accessible to the print/order management server (e.g., via the internet). In some embodiments, a unique identifier is created by the print/order management server to more readily identify a user modified script file and/or for security (e.g., identification) reasons. In further embodiments, the unique identifier (e.g., URL) is sent to a printing vendor (e.g., the print vendor is sent a URL that includes a unique identifier for a user modified script file) and the printing vendor prints the article/object only when the vendor clicks the URL. In some embodiments, a user directly instruct a vendor's printer to print an article/object (e.g., encoded by a user modified script (e.g., present on a data server or on a user's computer)). In other embodiments, a user instructs a vendor that the user would like an article/object (e.g., encoded by a user modified script (e.g., present on a data server or on a user's computer), and the vendor instructs a vendor's printer to print the article/object.”)
Accordingly, as Taig and Sisk are directed to 3D object printing and control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of utilizing a print/order management server as an exemplary accessible storage option for the vendor to print the article/object based on user’s instruction, as taught by Sisk to the interactive methods and systems for generating toolpaths for printing 3D objects with access to various databases and servers as taught by Taig. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled the user and server machines to work together to accomplish the processing and printing of objects in a convenient and secured manner, as evident in Sisk, 0051, 0060-61, etc.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taig (US 20200324482 A1) in view of Ho (US 20160339641 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Taig teaches:
A system comprising a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory including instructions such that the processor is programmed to: ([0087] - "Memory 150 may store instructions that enable processor 160 to execute one or more applications or software available or executable on computer systems.'')
convert G-code to G-node data; ([0078] - ''For example, slicer commands may be converted directly into machine code. For example, a specific 3D printer may be provided tailored instructions by a G-code file." See below citations for further details including [0102] and [0115].)
generate a plurality of windows based on a plurality of G-node segments; ([0102] - "For example, a job may comprise one or more parts, each part may be partitioned into one or more pieces, each piece may be partitioned into a plurality of slices, and each slice may be partitioned into a plurality of segments."; [0115] - "In some cases, a user may specify one or more parameters related to printing process parameters ... and various variables defined in the numerical control programming code for a segment." See also [0078] - The G-code that is converted into printing instructions may be partitioned into segments representing a plurality of
parameters for printing.)
calculate an average velocity based on the plurality of windows, wherein the velocity corresponds to a 3D printer head; ([0115]- "The printing process parameters specific to the associated printer may include ... temperature of support, temperature of feedstock ... nozzle temperature, extrusion speed, head temperature, dwell time before printing, dwell time after printing ... The parameters related to the print head motion may include, for example, (maximum) speeds and accelerations for each axis, moving speed of the print head along a given deposition path, moving speed of the print head along a given non-deposition path, gap along height direction, coordinates of a start or end point, angle or orientation of the print head, and various other factors.''; [0182] - "In addition to minimizing one of these factors, users may set proportional ‘weights’ for multiple factors and the algorithm may minimize an overall score that may be calculated from some or all of the weights. The score may be, for example, a weighted sum or average.")
determine a temperature … (See [0114] – “The one or more parameters may be related to printing configurations specific to the printer, print head movement, and/or coding.” [0115] - a user may specify one or more parameters related to printing process parameters, print head movement, coding and various variables defined in the numerical control programming code for a segment. Note, the printing process parameters include various types of temperature.);
and insert a G-code heat command into a G-code command file based on the determined temperature. ([0107] - ''A trace may be the trajectory a print head moves along during printing. The trajectory may be adjusted prior to printing or during printing in real-time. The trajectory may be adjusted manually by a user, automatically in accordance with predefined conditions.” Here, the predefined conditions entail the trajectory of the print head being adjusted in real time based on a variety of parameters and the parameters may include temperature, as in [0078] and [0115]. As above, [0078] is associated with tailored instructions by a G-code file and [0115] teaches, a user may specify one or more parameters related to printing process parameters (that includes temperature), print head movement, coding and various variables defined in the numerical control programming code for a segment.)
While Taig implicitly teaches below (as in Fig. 3, [0103], [0114-0115] and [0182], etc.),
Taig does not explicitly disclose the temperature to be corresponding to the average velocity.
Ho explicitly teaches the temperature to be corresponding to the average velocity. (See abstract – “Corresponding temperature information is obtained from the temperature rule table according to the printing speed information and the discharge speed information. Further, a temperature of the discharge nozzle is adjusted according to the printing speed information, the discharge speed and the at least one temperature information.” See Fig. 2, S205, S207, 0025-28, 0053-56 and 0059-60 for further details and also note, table 1 is the rule table, for which 0026 teaches, “The multiple corresponding printing temperatures corresponding to the printing speed parameter and the discharge speed parameter are mainly defined according to printing materials. However, person who applying the present embodiment should understand that the printing speed ranges, the discharge speed ranges and the printing temperatures may also decided according to other parameters or conditions instead of being limited only to the aforesaid conditions.”)
Accordingly, as Taig and Ho are directed to 3D printing optimization and control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of the process and system controlling printing temperature by defining temperatures corresponding to printing speed parameters as taught by Ho to the interactive slicing methods and systems for generating toolpaths for printing three-dimensional objects that is capable of printing using instructions based on user defined parameters including average velocity and various types of temperature as taught by Taig. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled defining such parameters according to printing materials amongst other options such as deciding based on other parameters or conditions providing flexibility to the user and improving printing quality, as evident in Ho, 0008-11, 0026, 0059-60, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Taig and Ho disclose the system as recited in claim 1.
Taig further discloses wherein the G-node data comprises at least one of a time to produce a line, a quantity of head movements, a head direction, a time to print a line, or maximum velocities at corners (Besides [0102], see [0103] - ''Design requirements can be selected from a group that includes ... minimal print time ... print head movement speed, or the material and density to direct heat through a specific area of the part and the like.").
Regarding claim 5, Taig and Ho disclose the system as recited in claim 1.
Taig further discloses wherein the processor is further programmed to generate the plurality of G-node segments ([0101] - "A slicing process may comprise other operations pertaining to generating fabrication instructions to a 3D printer, analysis of a 3D model and the like.''; [0114] - ''The one or more parameters may be the parameters comprised by the G-code. The one or more parameters may be related to generating a G-code."; see also para [0087] and [0115] detailing the programmed generation aspect, such as, “In some cases, a user may specify one or more parameters related to printing process parameters, print head movement, coding and various variables defined in the numerical control programming code for a segment.”).
Regarding claim 6, Taig and Ho disclose the system as recited in claim 5.
Taig further discloses wherein the plurality of G-node segments include G-node data corresponding to at least one print head. ([0114]-[0115], as above. For example, [0114] – “The one or more parameters may be related to printing configurations specific to the printer, print head movement, and/or coding.” See also more specific examples of printing process parameters corresponding to print head in [0115].).
Regarding claim 13, Taig and Ho disclose the system as recited in claim 1.
Taig and Ho further disclose wherein the processor is further programmed to access a lookup table to determine the G-code heat command to insert into the G-code command file. (Taig: As above, [0078], [0107], and [0115] teach the aspect of inserting the heat command. Ho: Regarding the lookup table aspect, as above, see abstract – “Corresponding temperature information is obtained from the temperature rule table according to the printing speed information and the discharge speed information. Further, a temperature of the discharge nozzle is adjusted according to the printing speed information, the discharge speed and the at least one temperature information.” See Fig. 2, S205, S207, 0025-28 and 0053-56 for further details and also note, table 1 is the rule table, for which 0026 teaches, “The multiple corresponding printing temperatures corresponding to the printing speed parameter and the discharge speed parameter are mainly defined according to printing materials.).
Accordingly, motivation to combine these teachings would have been similar to the reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 14, Taig and Ho disclose the system as recited in claim 13.
Ho further discloses wherein the lookup table includes a linear model that relates overall average velocity to a temperature for a heated nozzle. (As above, for the lookup table aspect, see abstract, Fig. 2, S205, S207, 0025-28 and 0053-56 where table 1 described in 0026 is the rule table and “The multiple corresponding printing temperatures corresponding to the printing speed parameter and the discharge speed parameter are mainly defined according to printing materials. See formula 1 in 0059-60 for calculating the temperature (i.e., linear model) and using the table 1 (i.e., lookup table) for determining temperature based on printing speed, for example.).
Accordingly, motivation to combine these teachings would have been similar to the reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 15, Taig and Ho disclose the system as recited in claim 14.
Taig and Ho further disclose wherein the overall average velocity corresponds to a sum of x-y velocities of individual G-code commands within at least one window of the plurality of windows. (Taig: As above, see [0102], [0115] & [0182] teach average velocity as exemplary parameters for commands within window(s). Ho: See above, 0025-28 and 0053-56 that teach the formula and the lookup table, a summation that accounts for X and Y elements of speed determines the temperature.)
Accordingly, motivation to combine these teachings would have been similar to the reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 2-3, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taig (US 20200324482 A1) in view of Ho (US 20160339641 A1) in further view of Gordon (US 20160207263 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Taig and Ho disclose the system as recited in claim 1.
While Taig teaches the overall programming aspects in 0087, 0154, etc.,
Taig and Ho do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further programmed to insert a pre-heat G-code command into the G-code command file.
Gordon further discloses wherein the processor is further programmed to insert a pre-heat G-code command into the G-code command file. ([0024] - ''Print control system 102 may include ... a set of g-code commands, to create the 3D object."; [0080] - "A state of a printer may be monitored continuously ... to provide targeted pre-and/or post-heating of material."; [0083] - ''At step 408, a selection or command to provide pre-heating, post-heating, or both is monitored.".).
Accordingly, as Taig, Ho, and Gordon are directed to 3D printing optimization and control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the well-known feature of including a pre-heating command as taught by Gordon to the programmed interactive slicing methods and systems for generating toolpaths for printing three-dimensional objects that is capable of printing using instructions based on user defined parameters including average velocity and various types of temperature as taught by Taig and Ho. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have allowed the system to modify the G-code depending on operational parameters, as specified by the tenant application, as evident in Gordon, 0024, 0080, 0083, etc.
Regarding claim 3, Taig, Ho, and Gordon disclose the system as recited in claim 2.
Taig and Gordon further disclose wherein the processor is further programmed to (Taig, 0087, 0154 teach programming aspects, as above) determine the pre-heat G-code command based on a calculated heat time defining a time unit prior to when a non-active print head transitions to an active state. (Besides 0024, 0080, and 0083 as above, see [0084] -"At step 410, a determination is made as to whether there is a selection or command to provide pre-heat, post-heat or both for some or all material in an object. Determination 410 may occur at any time before or during printing of an object.)
Accordingly, motivation to combine these teachings would have been similar to the reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 7, Taig and Ho disclose the system as recited in claim 6.
While Taig teaches the overall aspect of coding and controlling print head movement in 0114-15, etc.,
Taig and Ho do not explicitly disclose wherein the G-node segments include at least one segment separator that separates G-node data corresponding to a first print head from G-node data corresponding to a second print head.
Gordon further discloses wherein the G-node segments include at least one segment separator that separates G-node data corresponding to a first print head from G-node data corresponding to a second print head. ([0057-58] - "Print control system 102 may execute one or more programs that monitor, store and control operating parameters, conditions and states to accomplish various tasks. ... Information 111 provided or input to print control system 102 may compute, for example, a digital model of an object to be created or a series of movement and control commands to print the object. Instructions maybe implemented, for example, using G-code commands ... These G-code or other commands are typically generated by software from a 3D digital model .... Print system 104 may comprise a printer that responds to commands ... provided by print control system 102. Commands or instructions may cause print system 104 to move one or more print heads 204 in one or more axes during construction of a model.").
Accordingly, as Taig, Ho, and Gordon are directed to 3D printing optimization and control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the well-known feature of including specific commands for specific printer heads as taught by Gordon to the programmed interactive slicing methods and systems for generating toolpaths for printing three-dimensional objects that is capable of printing using instructions based on user defined parameters including average velocity and various types of temperature and include plurality of printer heads as taught by Taig and Ho. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have allowed multiple printer heads to be operated based on different x-y coordinates, as specified by the tenant application, as evident in Gordon, 0057-58, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Taig, Ho, and Gordon disclose the system as recited in claim 7.
Taig further discloses wherein each window of the plurality of windows comprise a set of G-node data. (As above, 0078 - The G-code that is converted into printing instructions may be partitioned into segments representing a plurality of parameters for printing. Also see 0102 - "For example, a job may comprise one or more parts, each part may be partitioned into one or more pieces, each piece may be partitioned into a plurality of slices, and each slice may be partitioned into a plurality of segments.")
Regarding claim 9, Taig, Ho, and Gordon disclose the system as recited in claim 8.
Taig further discloses wherein the processor is further programmed to assign the set of G-node data based on a time parameter. ([0124] - " A user may specify one or more parameters at different levels according to the hierarchy. For instance, a user may specify one or more parameters associated with a segment, a slice, a piece, a part or a job.''; See also para [0103] and [0115], such as, [0115] - The printing process parameters specific to the associated printer may include, for example, ... dwell time before printing, dwell time after printing, ... and various other fabrication instructions pertaining to the specific printing technologies employed.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10-12 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
10. The system as recited in claim 9, wherein the processor is further programmed to assign the set of G-node data such that a sum of total time parameters of the set of G-node data does not exceed a predetermined time threshold.
Note, claims 11-12 depend from claim 10:
11. The system as recited in claim 10, wherein the processor is further programmed to generate a new window when the sum exceeds the predetermined time threshold.
12. The system as recited in claim 11, wherein the processor is further programmed to assign another set of G-node data to the new window.
Regarding claim 16, the closest prior art found besides the above cited arts, Comb (US 6054077 A) teaches, “The flow rate profile for a given extrusion system may alternatively be fitted to other types of time-responsive functions, for example, a polynomial function.” (See c12, 4th paragraph.) However, it doesn’t teach or suggest any connection to a temperature control utilizing this function. Accordingly, the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
16. The system as recited in claim 13, wherein the lookup table includes a polynomial model that relates overall average velocity to a temperature for a heated nozzle.
Note, claim(s) 17 depend(s) from claim 16:
17. The system as recited in claim 16, wherein the overall average velocity corresponds to a sum of x-y velocities of individual G-code commands within at least one window of the plurality of windows.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NORMAN et al. (US 20180165730 A1) is related to methods and systems for designing and producing a three-dimensional object selection of a base three-dimensional object from a customer device. A base three-dimensional model corresponding to the object is displayed on the customer device, and one or more custom modifications are received. A modified three-dimensional model corresponding to the modified object is prepared and displayed. Once confirmation to produce the modified object is received, data corresponding to the modified three-dimensional model is transmitted to a manufacturing device for production of the object, using the data to do so, such that the object corresponds directly to the modified three-dimensional model. … At least one computing device is additionally configured to perform the method through an Application Programming Interface (API), wherein the API comprises a set of subroutine definitions, protocols, and tools executable by at least two computing devices when retrieved from a non-transitory storage device, enabling the at least two computing devices to collaboratively enable the method, wherein the API enables a second computing device to be communicatively coupled to the first computing device to perform one or more operations of the method, and wherein, a cluster of computers comprises at least one of a database server, a file server, an e-commerce server, a geospatial engine, a search engine, a 3D file buffer, a print server, and a web server.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on T-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
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.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117