DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 Information Disclosure Statements, filed 22 September 2025, 22 September 2025, and 22 September 2025 have been fully considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 21-40 are rejected, grounds follow.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS FINAL, see additional information at the conclusion of this action.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that instant application is a Continuation of Applications 14/587,548 (now US patent # 10,421,238), 16/576,044 (now US patent # 10,987,878), 17/239,885 (now US patent # 11,599,685), and 18/148,591 (now US patent # 11,886,774) and has been accorded the benefit of the earliest priority date.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 August with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection in view of the “Astroprint” reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., apparently that the method requires identifying multiple printers or does not embrace embodiments which interact with devices connected to said printers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regarding the final four steps of the method alleged not taught, Examiner notes that the Astroprint reference reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations, which do not exclude, inter alia, the device which is queried for the information, the source of the received dictionary, which device or system – or person for that matter - creates the fabrication profile, nor the particular form of the machine ready representation other than it be executable by the printer (so e.g. STL or g-code appear to both read on the claim, among other possible representations).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection over Douglas ‘585 in view of Mark et al., ‘691 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case both Douglas and Mark are relied upon only for their explicit teachings and the operation in combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application for the reason(s) stated in the rejection, which relies only on knowledge gleaned from the prior art references in its reconstruction.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s remarks regarding the double patenting rejection and notes for clarity of the record that the rejection shall be maintained until such time as the claims have been amended to obviate the rejection or the instant application is subject to terminal disclaimer with respect to the reference patent(s).
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) 21-22, 26, 29, and 31-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3Dagogo – “AstroPrint Wireless 3D printing software” – Kickstarter, May 26, 2014 (hereafter Astroprint).
Regarding Claim 21, Astroprint discloses:
A method comprising: determining a target 3D printer (printer, see figure on top of page 4; astroprint.com server identifies printer by account, see page 2 “AstroPrint.com slices, organizes and stores your designs in the cloud. In addition, through AstroPrint.com you can connect to your Astrobox to control your printer.”) in preparation to fabricate an object from a digital object representation; (“design” see page 2 “slices, organizes, and stores your designs”)
querying for configuration information (e.g. model of printer and/or filament type) of the target 3D printer relevant to creation of a printable model for fabrication of the object on the 3D target printer; (see page 3, “Who is it for a)”, Astroprint Box considered as part of the printer.)
receiving a dictionary of configuration information containing one or more properties that affect fabrication capabilities of the target 3D printer; (see page 3 “Beginners to 3D Printing” – Astroprint will automagically set the most ideal settings … based on your printer and filament manufacturer’s suggested settings.”)
creating a fabrication profile based on the one or more properties; (Page 3 “automagically set the most ideal settings for each of your prints”)
and generating a machine-ready representation of the digital object representation model executable by the target 3D printer to fabricate the object. (Page 2, “AstroPrint.com slices, organizes, and stores your designs in the cloud.”)
Regarding Claim 22, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Astroprint further discloses:
wherein the querying step comprises querying the target printer. (Page 3, “Simply plug your printer’s USB cable into the AstroBox, connect to the ‘AstroBox Wifi’ network, and the box does the rest.”)
Regarding Claim 26, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Astroprint further discloses:
wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from a cloud-based service. (see page 3, “Astroprint will automagically set the most ideal settings… based on your printer and filament manufacturer’s suggested settings as well as our expert experience” and bottom of page 2 “Astroprint.com slices… in the cloud.”)
Regarding Claim 29, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Astroprint further discloses:
wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation in a cloud-based service. (Bottom of Page 2 “Astroprint.com slices… in the cloud”)
Regarding Claim 31, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Astroprint further discloses:
wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation into a plurality of layers. (Bottom of Page 2 “Astroprint.com slices… in the cloud”; see Page 9, slicing softer is Slic3r, a commercially available open source program which converts STL or OBJ files into g-code describing a plurality of layers for additive manufacturing. Although not specifically relied upon for this rejection, please see the non-patent-literature “Slic3r.org about”)
Regarding Claim 32, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Astroprint further discloses:
further comprising transmitting the machine-ready representation to the target printer for fabrication. (Page 3, “you can connect to your astrobox, (and therefore, your printer) from anywhere you have internet access. This allows you to… start/stop print jobs”)
Regarding Claim 33, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Astroprint further discloses:
further comprising fabricating the object with the target printer. (Page 3, “you can connect to your astrobox, (and therefore, your printer) from anywhere you have internet access. This allows you to… start/stop print jobs”)
Regarding Claim 34, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Astroprint further discloses:
wherein the one or more properties include a hardware configuration of the target printer. (at least material type, i.e. “filament” see Page 3 first paragraph.)
Regarding Claim 35, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Astroprint further discloses:
wherein the hardware configuration includes one or more of an extruder type, an extruder nozzle diameter, a build volume, a build platform type, a hardware version number, a top speed for linear movement of a tool, a step size for movement of the tool, a minimum z-axis size, a gantry type, and a build material type. (at least material type, i.e. “filament” see Page 3 first paragraph.)
Regarding Claim 36, Astroprint discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Astroprint further discloses:
wherein generating the machine-ready representation includes selecting one of a plurality of stored machine-ready models according to the fabrication profile as the machine-ready representation. (Page 3 b) power-users: “we organize gcodes in relation to the STLs they were sliced from. This lets you print hassle free from anywhere, anytime.”; fabrication profile includes at least a filament type, see page 3 “Beginners to 3D Printing” – Astroprint will automagically set the most ideal settings … based on your printer and filament manufacturer’s suggested settings.”)
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) 21-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas, US Pg-Pub 2014/0117585 in view of Mark, et al., US Pg-Pub 2015/0165691.
Regarding Claim 21, Douglas teaches:
A method comprising: determining a target 3D printer (fig. 2, 3D printers 204; [0032] “A print server 208 may also maintain a list of available three-dimensional printers 204, and may automatically select one of the three-dimensional printers 204 for a user-submitted print job”)
in preparation to fabricate an object from a digital object representation; (see e.g. [0013] “three-dimensional printers using fused deposition modeling or similar techniques where a bead of material is extruded in a layered series of two dimensional patterns as "roads," "paths" or the like to form a three-dimensional object from a digital model.”)
querying ([0073] “The client device 206 may request the three-dimensional printer 306 to transmit the data tag 304 data for one or more of the connected supplies 302”) for configuration information (e.g. at least a loaded material filament; see [0060] “a supply 302 of build material 312”) of the target 3D printer relevant to creation of a printable model ([0064] “The data may characterize at least one property of the build material 312”) for fabrication of the object on the 3D target printer; (i.e. [0073] “for determination of operational parameters”)
receiving a dictionary of configuration information containing one or more properties that affect fabrication capabilities of the target 3D printer; (properties relevant to fabrication include, e.g. [0064] “at least one of a material identification number, a build material type, a build material diameter, an extruder temperature requirement, a build material melting temperature, a build material color, a build material color lot number, a cost per unit of build material, a build material density, a build material tensile strength, a build material viscosity, a build material recycle code, a build material expiration date, or other characteristic information appropriate for a three-dimensional printer.”)
creating a fabrication profile based on the one or more properties; ([0097] “based upon the type of build material, the controller may determine a variety of parameters such as an extruder temperature, a feed rate, a build platform temperature, a build volume temperature, an infill requirement, a rafting requirement, a support structure requirement, an extruder movement speed, and a cooling requirement.”)
and [supplying] a machine-ready representation (tool instructions) of the digital object representation model ([0041] “As used here, the term `print queue` is intended to include print data (e.g., the three-dimensional model or tool instructions to fabricate an object)”) executable by the target 3D printer to fabricate the object. (see fig. 6, steps 610 and 612; [0099] “As shown in step 612, the method 600 may include fabricating an object while using the operational parameter(s) to control operation of a three-dimensional printer. It will be appreciated that this approach can dramatically simplify use of a three-dimensional printer by automating those aspects of printer configuration that depend on the type of build material being used. Thus a user may simply load a build materially from a suitably instrumented container and select an object to print without specifying various configuration details that might otherwise be required.)
Douglas differs from the claimed invention in that:
Douglas does not clearly articulate a step of Generating the machine-ready representation.
However, Mark teaches generating three-dimensional toolpath instructions ([0070] “for each layer, toolpaths ("layers and slices" 1002) are calculated by a path planner 1004 for controlling actuators to deposit, focus a laser or lamp or projector to cure, solidify, or otherwise apply material.”) for a three-dimensional printer (i.e. a machine-ready representation) (see fig. 5, “G-code” 1102; [0073] “As sent to the 3D printer 2000, the toolpaths are used to create an instruction file for actuation, conventionally called a "G-code" file or stream 1102. The toolpath generator 2006 generates toolpaths may also serve as the G-code generator 2010 by interpreting the toolpaths into a machine-specific code.) which are based on configuration parameters/rule sets (fig. 5, “Rules 1006”) including material type (see fig. 20, rules including Material, fiber-type, etc.) (which correspond to the operational parameters of Douglas, which include at least material type, see [0064] of Douglas.)
Mark and Douglas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of 3D printing, and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each includes a control system for a 3D printer, each provides operational instructions to a 3D printer for the execution of a process to fabricate a three-dimensional object.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Douglas to include generating the machine-ready representation as suggested by Mark.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce machine-specific code sufficient to complete the printing process, as suggested by Mark. (Mark [0073] “The toolpath generator 2006 generates toolpaths may also serve as the G-code generator 2010 by interpreting the toolpaths into a machine-specific code. The G-code is sequenced including all starting and finishing times, control or command variables (e.g., speed for a motor, current for a heater), and the like, to arrange the actuator instructions sufficient for a job to complete. The G-code 1002 file, because it is dependent upon physical arrangement of the printer itself, is typically printer specific.”)
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
wherein the querying step comprises querying the target printer. ([0073] “The client device 206 may request the three-dimensional printer 306 to transmit the data tag 304 data for one or more of the connected supplies 302”)
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
wherein the querying step comprises querying a cloud- based service. ([0074] a print server 208 may request build material information from one or more supplies coupled to a three-dimensional printer, and may store this information and make this information available to users of the print server, or as an input to a process on the print server for allocating print requests to various three-dimensional printers.” See fig. 2, server 208 is a networked resource, which may be e.g. cloud-based, see [0103].)
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
wherein the querying step comprises querying a print server. ([0074] a print server 208 may request build material information from one or more supplies coupled to a three-dimensional printer, and may store this information and make this information available to users of the print server, or as an input to a process on the print server for allocating print requests to various three-dimensional printers.”)
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from the target printer. ([0073] “The client device 206 may request the three-dimensional printer 306 to transmit the data tag 304 data for one or more of the connected supplies 302”)
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from a cloud-based service. ([0074] a print server 208 may request build material information from one or more supplies coupled to a three-dimensional printer, and may store this information and make this information available to users of the print server, or as an input to a process on the print server for allocating print requests to various three-dimensional printers.” See fig. 2, server 208 is a networked resource, which may be e.g. cloud-based, see [0103].)
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from a print server. ([0074] a print server 208 may request build material information from one or more supplies coupled to a three-dimensional printer, and may store this information and make this information available to users of the print server, or as an input to a process on the print server for allocating print requests to various three-dimensional printers.”)
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Mark further teaches:
wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation in the 3D printer. ([0069] “a geometry file is "sliced" by a family of slicer routines 904 (as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, resident on a workstation, server, or virtualized/cloud server) in a direction parallel to the expected build platen to create a series of layers or lamina”)
Although Mark does not clearly articulate the workstation is “in” the 3D printer, Examiner notes that rearrangement of parts where the overall operation of the device is not modified thereby is an obvious matter of design choice. (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C citing In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) and In re Japikse 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).)
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Mark further teaches:
wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation in a cloud-based service. ([0069] “a geometry file is "sliced" by a family of slicer routines 904 (as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, resident on a workstation, server, or virtualized/cloud server) in a direction parallel to the expected build platen to create a series of layers or lamina”)
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Mark further teaches:
wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation in a print server. ([0069] “a geometry file is "sliced" by a family of slicer routines 904 (as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, resident on a workstation, server, or virtualized/cloud server) in a direction parallel to the expected build platen to create a series of layers or lamina”)
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Mark further teaches:
wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation into a plurality of layers. ([0069] “a geometry file is "sliced" by a family of slicer routines 904 (as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, resident on a workstation, server, or virtualized/cloud server) in a direction parallel to the expected build platen to create a series of layers or lamina”)
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
further comprising transmitting the machine-ready representation to the target printer for fabrication. ([0072] “the appropriate remote source may transmit the determined operational parameters back to the three-dimensional printer 306 for fabrication of the object 314.”)
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent Claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
further comprising fabricating the object with the target printer. (see fig. 6, steps 610 and 612; [0099] “As shown in step 612, the method 600 may include fabricating an object while using the operational parameter(s) to control operation of a three-dimensional printer)
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Douglas further teaches:
wherein the one or more properties include a hardware configuration of the target printer. ([0064] “The data may characterize at least one property of the build material 312” nb. at least a hardware configuration comprising the material type loaded into the printer; see [0061])
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 34,
Douglas further teaches:
wherein the hardware configuration includes one or more of an extruder type, an extruder nozzle diameter, a build volume, a build platform type, a hardware version number, a top speed for linear movement of a tool, a step size for movement of the tool, a minimum z-axis size, a gantry type, and a build material type. ([0064] “The data may characterize at least one property of the build material 312. For example… a build material type…”)
Claim(s) 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Mark, further in view of Pettis et al., US Pg-Pub 2013/0329243.
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates wherein generating the machine-ready representation includes selecting one of a plurality of stored machine-ready models according to the fabrication profile as the machine-ready representation.
However, Pettis teaches a 3D printing control method (see fig. 5) which selects one of a plurality of stored machine-ready models (fig. 5, 518 “select machine ready model”) according to matching a fabrication profile (see [0072] “As such, the selection engine 416 may select one or more models most suited to that type of build material.”) as the machine-ready representation (i.e. to print, see fig. 5 step 522.)
Pettis is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of 3D printing; and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each includes a control system for a 3D printer, each provides operational instructions to a 3D printer for the execution of a process to fabricate a three-dimensional object.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the method of Douglas with the selection of previously generated machine-ready models, as suggested by Pettis.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make the modification in order to provide convenient user access to printable models, as suggested by Pettis ([0058] “to provide convenient user access to machine-ready models for fabrication, such as by providing one-click downloading or printing of remotely stored, printable content. In order to facilitate these user interactions, three-dimensional models may be processed in a manner that permits convenient retrieval of relevant data on a user-by-user or printer-by-printer basis.”)
Regarding Claim 37, the combination of Douglas, Mark and Pettis teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 36,
Pettis further teaches:
determining whether one of the plurality of stored machine-ready models can be modified to meet the fabrication profile; ([0073] “The modification engine 414 may in general be used to modify a pre-existing machine-ready model in the database 402 as an alternative to storing multiple machine-ready models with minor variations.”)
modifying the one of the plurality of stored machine ready models for use as the machine- ready representation if possible; ([0087] “As shown in step 519, the method may include modifying a selected machine-ready model according to specific configuration information for the three-dimensional printer associated with the client.”
and generating a new machine-ready representation according to the fabrication profile for use as the machine-ready representation if not possible. ([0077] “the method 500 may include creating a plurality of machine-ready models based upon the digital model. This may include machine-ready models for a variety of types of three-dimensional printers and/or hardware configurations as discussed above. … A predetermined configuration for one of the types of three-dimensional printers may also include one or more hardware components … which may require specialized machine code for use in fabricating a model. In general the number of machine-ready models may be any number of machine-ready models according to the number and type of printers desired to be covered, the storage or processing capabilities of the system, the degree of granularity desired for varying hardware configurations, or any other factors.”)
Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
neither reference clearly articulates: further comprising determining whether a suitable machine-ready model is available for the fabrication profile.
However, Pettis teaches a 3D printing control method (see fig. 5) which determines whether a suitable machine-ready model (fig. 5, 518 “select machine ready model”) is available for the fabrication profile. (see [0072] “As such, the selection engine 416 may select one or more models most suited to that type of build material.”)
Pettis is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of 3D printing; and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each includes a control system for a 3D printer, each provides operational instructions to a 3D printer for the execution of a process to fabricate a three-dimensional object.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the method of Douglas with the selection of previously generated machine-ready models, as suggested by Pettis.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make the modification in order to provide convenient user access to printable models, as suggested by Pettis ([0058] “to provide convenient user access to machine-ready models for fabrication, such as by providing one-click downloading or printing of remotely stored, printable content. In order to facilitate these user interactions, three-dimensional models may be processed in a manner that permits convenient retrieval of relevant data on a user-by-user or printer-by-printer basis.”)
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Douglas, Mark, and Pettis teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 38,
Pettis further teaches:
selecting the suitable machine-ready model if available ([0072] “Similarly, if a three-dimensional printer uses a certain type of build material (e.g., PLA or ABS), this may impose practical limits on aspects of a model such as where support structures are needed for overhangs or whether a raft or other substrate should be printed. As such, the selection engine 416 may select one or more models most suited to that type of build material.”)
and generating the machine-ready representation according to the fabrication profile if not available. ([0073] “The server may include a modification engine 414 configured to modify a selected one of the machine-ready models according to specific configuration information for the three-dimensional printer associated with the client 406. The modification engine 414 may in general be used to modify a pre-existing machine-ready model in the database 402 as an alternative to storing multiple machine-ready models with minor variations.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the method of Douglas with the selection of previously generated machine-ready models, and the generation of modified machine-ready models when necessary, as suggested by Pettis.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make the modification in order to provide convenient user access to printable models, as suggested by Pettis ([0058] “to provide convenient user access to machine-ready models for fabrication, such as by providing one-click downloading or printing of remotely stored, printable content. In order to facilitate these user interactions, three-dimensional models may be processed in a manner that permits convenient retrieval of relevant data on a user-by-user or printer-by-printer basis.”) and to avoid storing models with only minor variations, as suggested by Pettis ([0073] “The modification engine 414 may in general be used to modify a pre-existing machine-ready model in the database 402 as an alternative to storing multiple machine-ready models with minor variations”)
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of Douglas and Mark teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
neither of the references clearly articulates: further comprising generating descriptive metadata to accompany the machine-ready representation, the descriptive metadata specifying one or more properties for comparison to properties of printers selected for fabricating the model.
However, Pettis teaches a 3D printing control method (see fig. 5) which generates descriptive metadata to accompany the machine-ready representation (fig. 5 “Store Metadata 510” [0080] “the method 500 may include storing metadata for the object that is the subject of the models. This may include metadata received from a source of the underlying three-dimensional model or metadata created by a server or the like that receives the three-dimensional model.”) the descriptive metadata specifying one or more properties for comparison to properties of printers selected for fabricating the model. (including at least build material, see [0062] “For example, the analysis engine 310 may generate useful metadata concerning the size, printability, build material requirements, and so forth for the object based upon any suitable set of rules and populate the metadata 308 with results.” )
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the method of Douglas to include generating descriptive metadata for the machine-ready representations as suggested by PETTIS.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make the modification in order to provide convenient user access to printable models, as suggested by Pettis ([0058] “to provide convenient user access to machine-ready models for fabrication, such as by providing one-click downloading or printing of remotely stored, printable content. In order to facilitate these user interactions, three-dimensional models may be processed in a manner that permits convenient retrieval of relevant data on a user-by-user or printer-by-printer basis.”)
Double Patenting
Examiner notes for clarity of the record that the instant application is rejected for non-statutory double patenting (obviousness type) over each of the US patents 10,421,238; 10,987,878; 11,599,685; and 11,886,774; separately. (four separate rejections)
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,421,238 in view of Douglas, US Pg-Pub 2014/0117585 and Mark, et al., US Pg-Pub 2015/0165691 (variously); Because, as illustrated in the table below, the reference patent in view of Douglas and Mark teaches or fairly suggests the claims at issue in the instant application:
Instant Application 18/540,535
Reference Patent 10,421,238
21. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
determining a target 3D printer in preparation to fabricate an object from a digital object representation;
determining a target printer to fabricate the object at the remote print server
querying for configuration information of the target 3D printer relevant to creation of a printable model for fabrication of the object on the 3D target printer;
querying the target printer from the remote print server for configuration information of the target printer relevant to creation of a printable model for fabrication of the object on the target printer;
receiving a dictionary of configuration information containing one or more properties that affect fabrication capabilities of the target 3D printer;
receiving, from the target printer, a dictionary of configuration information containing one or more properties of the target printer that affect fabrication capabilities of the target printer;
creating a fabrication profile based on the one or more properties; and
creating a fabrication profile for fabrication of the object … the fabrication profile specifying one or more parameters … consistent with the fabrication capabilities of the target printer;
generating a machine-ready representation of the digital object representation model executable by the target 3D printer to fabricate the object.
generating a machine ready representation of the processed three dimensional model executable by the target printer to fabric the object based on the one or more properties.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the querying step comprises querying the target printer.
(claim 1) ... Querying the target printer …
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the querying step comprises querying a cloud-based service.
Obvious in view of Douglas ([0074]) – teaching querying a cloud based print server for printer properties.
24. The method of claim 21, wherein the querying step comprises querying a print server.
Obvious in view of Douglas ([0074]) – teaching querying a cloud based print server for printer properties.
25. The method of claim 21, wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from the target printer.
(claim 1) … receiving, from the target printer, a dictionary of configuration information …
26. The method of claim 21, wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from a cloud-based service.
Obvious in view of Douglas ([0074]) – teaching querying a cloud based print server for printer properties.
27. The method of claim 21, wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from a print server.
Obvious in view of Douglas ([0074]) – teaching querying a cloud based print server for printer properties.
28. The method of claim 21 wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation in the 3D printer.
(claim 1) "processing the three-dimensional model" obvious in view of Mark [0069] which teaches slicing a 3D model into layers for generating toolpaths in any of a workstation, print server, or cloud service.
29. The method of claim 21 wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation in a cloud-based service.
(claim 1) "processing the three-dimensional model" obvious in view of Mark [0069] which teaches slicing a 3D model into layers for generating toolpaths in any of a workstation, print server, or cloud service.
30. The method of claim 21 wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation in a print server.
(claim 1) "processing the three-dimensional model" obvious in view of Mark [0069] which teaches slicing a 3D model into layers for generating toolpaths in any of a workstation, print server, or cloud service.
31. The method of claim 21 wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation into a plurality of layers.
(claim 1) "processing the three-dimensional model" obvious in view of Mark [0069] which teaches slicing a 3D model into layers for generating toolpaths in any of a workstation, print server, or cloud service.
32. The method of claim 21 further comprising transmitting the machine-ready representation to the target printer for fabrication.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising transmitting one or more of the suitable machine-ready model and the machine-ready representation to the target printer for fabrication.
33. The method of claim 21 further comprising fabricating the object with the target printer.
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising fabricating the object with the target printer.
34. The method of claim 21 wherein the one or more properties include a hardware configuration of the target printer.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the one or more properties include a hardware configuration of the target printer.
35. The method of claim 34 wherein the hardware configuration includes one or more of an extruder type, an extruder nozzle diameter, a build volume, a build platform type, a hardware version number, a top speed for linear movement of a tool, a step size for movement of the tool, a minimum z-axis size, a gantry type, and a build material type.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein the hardware configuration includes one or more of an extruder type, an extruder nozzle diameter, a build volume, a build platform type, a hardware version number, a top speed for linear movement of a tool, a step size for movement of the tool, a minimum z-axis step size, a gantry type, and a build material type.
36. The method of claim 21 wherein generating the machine-ready representation includes selecting one of a plurality of stored machine-ready models according to the fabrication profile as the machine-ready representation.
(Claim 1) when a suitable machine-ready model is available from the content source, selecting the suitable machine-ready model for transmission to the target printer; and
37. The method of claim 36 further comprising:
13. The method of claim 12 further comprising:
determining whether one of the plurality of stored machine-ready models can be modified to meet the fabrication profile;
determining whether one of the plurality of stored machine-ready models can be modified to meet the fabrication profile;
modifying the one of the plurality of stored machine ready models for use as the machine-ready representation if possible; and
modifying the one of the plurality of stored machine ready models for use as the machine-ready representation if possible; and
generating a new machine-ready representation according to the fabrication profile for use as the machine-ready representation if not possible.
generating a new machine-ready representation according to the fabrication profile for use as the machine-ready representation if not possible.
38. The method of claim 21 further comprising determining whether a suitable machine-ready model is available for the fabrication profile.
(claim 1) … determining whether a suitable machine-ready model is available for the fabrication profile based on at least one of the one or more properties relevant to selection of a machine-ready model from a content source; …
39. The method of claim 38 further comprising selecting the suitable machine-ready model if available and generating the machine-ready representation according to the fabrication profile if not available.
(claim 1) … when a suitable machine-ready model is available from the content source, selecting the suitable machine-ready model for transmission to the target printer; andwhen a suitable machine-ready model is not available from the content source, ... generating a machine-ready representation of the processed three-dimensional model ... based on the one or more properties
40. The method of claim 21 further comprising generating descriptive metadata to accompany the machine-ready representation, the descriptive metadata specifying one or more properties for comparison to properties of printers selected for fabricating the model.
15. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating descriptive metadata to accompany one or more of the suitable machine-ready model and the machine-ready representation, the descriptive metadata specifying one or more properties for comparison to properties of printers selected for fabricating the model.
Claims 21-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,987,878 in view of Douglas, US Pg-Pub 2014/0117585 and Mark, et al., US Pg-Pub 2015/0165691 (variously); Because, as illustrated in the table below, the reference patent in view of Douglas and Mark teaches or fairly suggests the claims at issue in the instant application:
Instant Application 18/540,535
Reference Patent 10,987,878
21. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
determining a target 3D printer in preparation to fabricate an object from a digital object representation;
determining a target printer to fabricate the object at the remote print server;
querying for configuration information of the target 3D printer relevant to creation of a printable model for fabrication of the object on the 3D target printer;
querying the target printer from the remote print server for configuration information of the target printer including configuration information relevant to creation by a slicing engine of a printable model for fabrication of the object on the target printer;
receiving a dictionary of configuration information containing one or more properties that affect fabrication capabilities of the target 3D printer;
receiving, from the target printer, a dictionary of configuration information containing one or more properties of the target printer that affect fabrication capabilities of the target printer;
creating a fabrication profile based on the one or more properties; and
creating a fabrication profile for fabrication of the object on the target printer based on the one or more properties,
generating a machine-ready representation of the digital object representation model executable by the target 3D printer to fabricate the object.
processing the three-dimensional model with a slicing process at the remote print server according to the fabrication profile to generate a machine-ready representation of the processed three-dimensional model consistent with the fabrication capabilities of the target printer and executable by the target printer to fabricate the object based on the one or more properties.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the querying step comprises querying the target printer.
(Claim 1) … querying the target printer …
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the querying step comprises querying a cloud-based service.
Obvious in view of Douglas ([0074]) – teaching querying a cloud based print server for printer properties.
24. The method of claim 21, wherein the querying step comprises querying a print server.
Obvious in view of Douglas ([0074]) – teaching querying a cloud based print server for printer properties.
25. The method of claim 21, wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from the target printer.
(claim 1) … receiving, from the target printer, a dictionary of configuration information …
26. The method of claim 21, wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from a cloud-based service.
Obvious in view of Douglas ([0074]) – teaching querying a cloud based print server for printer properties.
27. The method of claim 21, wherein the receiving step comprises receiving the dictionary from a print server.
Obvious in view of Douglas ([0074]) – teaching querying a cloud based print server for printer properties.
28. The method of claim 21 wherein generating a machine-ready representation comprises slicing the digital object representation in the 3D printer.
(claim 1) … processing the three-dimensional model with