DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 22 August 2023 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 8:
a transition generation engine configured to … (Specification ¶19 “the computing system 100 shown in Figure 1 includes a transition generation engine 110 and an object processing engine 112. The computing system 100 may implement the engines 110 and 112 (including components thereof) in various ways”)
an object processing engine configured to … (Specification ¶19 “the computing system 100 shown in Figure 1 includes a transition generation engine 110 and an object processing engine 112. The computing system 100 may implement the engines 110 and 112 (including components thereof) in various ways”)
Each engine is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 11,484,946 B2 Kuester, et al. [herein “Kuester”] in view of US patent 11,020,909 B2 Compton, et al. [herein “Compton”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A method comprising: by a computing system.” Kuester column 4 lines 22-27 disclose “The controller system 15 (or controller 15) includes a processor coupled to a computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable storage medium includes a non-transitory or non-volatile storage medium storing computer-readable program code portions (i.e., software instructions) stored therein.” A processor with software instructions corresponds with a computing system.
Claim 1 further recites “accessing a computer-aided design (CAD) object comprising an external surface and an internal lattice structure represented through repeating unit cells of a lattice design, the internal lattice structure represented as a signed distance field (SDF).” Kuester column 7 lines 25-31 disclose:
According to 82 three-dimensional object data is imported by the controller 15. According to 84, the outer surface 23 of the three-dimensional article 4 is defined based upon the imported object data.
According to 86, the outer surface 23 is offset inwardly to define an inner surface 27 of the shell 25. The inner surface 27 defines the lattice volume 35.
Importing the 3D object data corresponds with accessing the CAD object. The outer surface corresponds with an external surface. The inner surface represents the lattice volume. The lattice volume corresponds with an internal lattice structure. The inward offset corresponds with a signed distance field of the internal lattice structure.
Kuester column 6 lines 29-30 disclose “Lattice 42 is an array of individual unit cells 48.” Kuester column 6 lines 50-52 disclose “Various lattices 42 can be used such as cubic, hexagonal, rhombohedral, triclinic, monoclinic, tetrahedral, and shortened tetrahedral.” Kuester column 7 lines 15-16 disclose “the lattice volume 35 defines an array of unit cells 48 that just fill the lattice volume 35.” The lattice of unit cells corresponds with the lattice structure being represented by repeating unit cells.
Claim 1 further recites “generating a transition structure for the CAD object within a transition distance from the external surface, including by: applying a secondary SDF that is different from the SDF that represents the internal lattice structure to modify a portion of the internal lattice structure within the transition distance from the external surface.” Kuester column 7 lines 58-59 disclose “forming a transition zone 29 between the lattice 42 and the shell 25.” Kuester column 8 lines 21-23 disclose “transition segments 126 are defined that couple the lattice 42 to the inner surface 27 of the shell 25.” The transition segments of the transition zone correspond with transition structures within a transition distance of the outer surface. The transition zone is different from the lattice volume array of unit cells.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the secondary SDF is quadratic for a first portion along the transition distance closest to the external surface and is linear for a second portion along the transition distance further from the external surface than the first portion.” Kuester does not explicitly disclose a quadratic and linear portion; however, in analogous art of additive manufacturing cellular structures, Compton column 14 lines 26-32 teach:
The shape of the shift function is bilinear when n=1 and quadratic when n=2. Higher values of n are contemplated as well. Examples of gradients resulting from these functions are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. The effect in cellular gradients within the domain from varying the parameters of equations (3) and (4) can be seen, for example, in FIGS. 5D-5F.
A quadratic shift function corresponds with a quadratic SDF along a transition distance. A bilinear shift function corresponds with a linear SDF along a transition distance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester and Compton. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use shift functions into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “designing graded cellular structures with tailored and unique combinations of static and dynamic properties.” See Compton column 2 lines 4-6.
Claim 1 further recites “and processing the CAD object comprising the transition structure in support of physical manufacture of the CAD object.” Kuester figure 2 shows “print hollow 3D object” (40). Printing the object corresponds with a physical manufacture of the CAD object. One or more preceding steps of Kuester figure 2 corresponds with processing the CAD object in support of the manufacture of “print hollow 3D object” (40).
Claim 3 further recites “3. The method of claim 1, wherein applying the secondary SDF to modify the portion of the internal lattice structure within the transition distance from the external surface comprises applying the secondary SDF to the SDF that represents the portion of the internal lattice structure to obtain the transition structure.” Kuester does not explicitly disclose a quadratic and linear portion; however, in analogous art of additive manufacturing cellular structures, Compton column 14 lines 26-32 teach:
The shape of the shift function is bilinear when n=1 and quadratic when n=2. Higher values of n are contemplated as well. Examples of gradients resulting from these functions are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. The effect in cellular gradients within the domain from varying the parameters of equations (3) and (4) can be seen, for example, in FIGS. 5D-5F.
A quadratic shift function corresponds with a quadratic SDF along a transition distance. A bilinear shift function corresponds with a linear SDF along a transition distance.
Gradients resulting form these shift functions correspond with modifying a portion of the internal lattice by applying the respective SDF to obtain the transition structure.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester and Compton. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use shift functions into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “designing graded cellular structures with tailored and unique combinations of static and dynamic properties.” See Compton column 2 lines 4-6.
Claim 4 further recites “4. The method of claim 1, wherein processing the CAD object comprising the transition structure in support of physical manufacture of the CAD object comprises: generating a faceted model of the CAD object, including by performing an SDF voxelization process for an expanded transition zone of the CAD object, wherein the expanded transition zone comprises any unit cells of the lattice design with at least a portion modified by the secondary SDF in generating the transition structure.” Kuester column 6 lines 29-30 disclose “Lattice 42 is an array of individual unit cells 48.” Kuester column 6 lines 50-52 disclose “Various lattices 42 can be used such as cubic, hexagonal, rhombohedral, triclinic, monoclinic, tetrahedral, and shortened tetrahedral.” Kuester column 7 lines 15-16 disclose “the lattice volume 35 defines an array of unit cells 48 that just fill the lattice volume 35.” The lattice of unit cells corresponds with the lattice structure being represented by repeating unit cells. The array of unit cells corresponds with respective voxels. The respective transition segments of the lattice array corresponds with an SDF voxelization process.
Kuester does not explicitly disclose a quadratic of a secondary SDF transition; however, in analogous art of additive manufacturing cellular structures, Compton column 14 lines 26-32 teach:
The shape of the shift function is bilinear when n=1 and quadratic when n=2. Higher values of n are contemplated as well. Examples of gradients resulting from these functions are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. The effect in cellular gradients within the domain from varying the parameters of equations (3) and (4) can be seen, for example, in FIGS. 5D-5F.
A quadratic shift function corresponds with a quadratic SDF along a transition distance.
This quadratic shift function region corresponds with the expanded transition zone comprising unit cells modified by the secondary (i.e. quadratic) SDF of the transition structure.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester and Compton. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use shift functions into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “designing graded cellular structures with tailored and unique combinations of static and dynamic properties.” See Compton column 2 lines 4-6.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The method of claim 4, further comprising utilizing a procedural-based faceted representation to represent portions of the internal lattice structure outside of the expanded transition zone in which no portion of a unit cell of the lattice design is modified by the secondary SDF in generating the transition structure.” Kuester column 8 lines 17-20 disclose “lattice unit cells 48 are arrayed to fill and extend beyond the lattice volume 35. According to 122, a Boolean intersection between the lattice unit cell 48 array and the lattice volume results in the lattice 42.” The Boolean intersection between the lattice unit cell array and the lattice volume corresponds with a procedural-based faceted representation to represents portions of the internal lattice structure.
Kuester column 5 lines 54-56 disclose “the inner lattice 46 has a lower density of hardened material per unit volume than the outer lattice 42.” The inner lattice of Kuester figure 3 corresponds to a unit cell lattice design in which no portion is modified by the secondary (e.g. quadratic) SDF generating the transition structure.
Claim 8 recites “8. A system comprising: a transition generation engine.” Kuester column 7 lines 58-59 disclose “forming a transition zone 29 between the lattice 42 and the shell 25.” Kuester column 8 lines 21-23 disclose “transition segments 126 are defined that couple the lattice 42 to the inner surface 27 of the shell 25.”
Kuester column 4 lines 22-27 disclose “The controller system 15 (or controller 15) includes a processor coupled to a computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable storage medium includes a non-transitory or non-volatile storage medium storing computer-readable program code portions (i.e., software instructions) stored therein.” A processor with software instructions corresponds with a computing system.
Claim 8 further recites “configured to: access a computer-aided design (CAD) object comprising an external surface and an internal lattice structure represented through repeating unit cells of a lattice design, the internal lattice structure represented as a signed distance field (SDF).” Kuester column 7 lines 25-31 disclose:
According to 82 three-dimensional object data is imported by the controller 15. According to 84, the outer surface 23 of the three-dimensional article 4 is defined based upon the imported object data.
According to 86, the outer surface 23 is offset inwardly to define an inner surface 27 of the shell 25. The inner surface 27 defines the lattice volume 35.
Importing the 3D object data corresponds with accessing the CAD object. The outer surface corresponds with an external surface. The inner surface represents the lattice volume. The lattice volume corresponds with an internal lattice structure. The inward offset corresponds with a signed distance field of the internal lattice structure.
Kuester column 6 lines 29-30 disclose “Lattice 42 is an array of individual unit cells 48.” Kuester column 6 lines 50-52 disclose “Various lattices 42 can be used such as cubic, hexagonal, rhombohedral, triclinic, monoclinic, tetrahedral, and shortened tetrahedral.” Kuester column 7 lines 15-16 disclose “the lattice volume 35 defines an array of unit cells 48 that just fill the lattice volume 35.” The lattice of unit cells corresponds with the lattice structure being represented by repeating unit cells.
Claim 8 further recites “and generate a transition structure for the CAD object within a transition distance from the external surface, including by: applying a secondary SDF that is different from the SDF that represents the internal lattice structure to modify a portion of the internal lattice structure within the transition distance from the external surface.” Kuester column 7 lines 58-59 disclose “forming a transition zone 29 between the lattice 42 and the shell 25.” Kuester column 8 lines 21-23 disclose “transition segments 126 are defined that couple the lattice 42 to the inner surface 27 of the shell 25.” The transition segments of the transition zone correspond with transition structures within a transition distance of the outer surface. The transition zone is different from the lattice volume array of unit cells.
Claim 8 further recites “wherein the secondary SDF is quadratic for a first portion along the transition distance closest to the external surface and is linear for a second portion along the transition distance further from the external surface than the first portion.” Kuester does not explicitly disclose a quadratic and linear portion; however, in analogous art of additive manufacturing cellular structures, Compton column 14 lines 26-32 teach:
The shape of the shift function is bilinear when n=1 and quadratic when n=2. Higher values of n are contemplated as well. Examples of gradients resulting from these functions are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. The effect in cellular gradients within the domain from varying the parameters of equations (3) and (4) can be seen, for example, in FIGS. 5D-5F.
A quadratic shift function corresponds with a quadratic SDF along a transition distance. A bilinear shift function corresponds with a linear SDF along a transition distance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester and Compton. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use shift functions into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “designing graded cellular structures with tailored and unique combinations of static and dynamic properties.” See Compton column 2 lines 4-6.
Claim 8 further recites “and an object processing engine configured to process the CAD object comprising the transition structure in support of physical manufacture of the CAD object.” Kuester figure 2 shows “print hollow 3D object” (40). Printing the object corresponds with a physical manufacture of the CAD object. One or more preceding steps of Kuester figure 2 corresponds with processing the CAD object in support of the manufacture of “print hollow 3D object” (40).
Dependent claims 10-12 are substantially similar to claims 3-5 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites “15. A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor.” Kuester column 4 lines 22-27 disclose “The controller system 15 (or controller 15) includes a processor coupled to a computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable storage medium includes a non-transitory or non-volatile storage medium storing computer-readable program code portions (i.e., software instructions) stored therein.”
Claim 15 further recites “cause a computing system to: access a computer-aided design (CAD) object comprising an external surface and an internal lattice structure represented through repeating unit cells of a lattice design, the internal lattice structure represented as a signed distance field (SDF).” Kuester column 7 lines 25-31 disclose:
According to 82 three-dimensional object data is imported by the controller 15. According to 84, the outer surface 23 of the three-dimensional article 4 is defined based upon the imported object data.
According to 86, the outer surface 23 is offset inwardly to define an inner surface 27 of the shell 25. The inner surface 27 defines the lattice volume 35.
Importing the 3D object data corresponds with accessing the CAD object. The outer surface corresponds with an external surface. The inner surface represents the lattice volume. The lattice volume corresponds with an internal lattice structure. The inward offset corresponds with a signed distance field of the internal lattice structure.
Kuester column 6 lines 29-30 disclose “Lattice 42 is an array of individual unit cells 48.” Kuester column 6 lines 50-52 disclose “Various lattices 42 can be used such as cubic, hexagonal, rhombohedral, triclinic, monoclinic, tetrahedral, and shortened tetrahedral.” Kuester column 7 lines 15-16 disclose “the lattice volume 35 defines an array of unit cells 48 that just fill the lattice volume 35.” The lattice of unit cells corresponds with the lattice structure being represented by repeating unit cells.
Claim 15 further recites “generate a transition structure for the CAD object within a transition distance from the external surface, including by: applying a secondary SDF that is different from the SDF that represents the internal lattice structure to modify a portion of the internal lattice structure within the transition distance from the external surface.” Kuester column 7 lines 58-59 disclose “forming a transition zone 29 between the lattice 42 and the shell 25.” Kuester column 8 lines 21-23 disclose “transition segments 126 are defined that couple the lattice 42 to the inner surface 27 of the shell 25.” The transition segments of the transition zone correspond with transition structures within a transition distance of the outer surface. The transition zone is different from the lattice volume array of unit cells.
Claim 15 further recites “wherein the secondary SDF is quadratic for a first portion along the transition distance closest to the external surface and is linear for a second portion along the transition distance further from the external surface than the first portion.” Kuester does not explicitly disclose a quadratic and linear portion; however, in analogous art of additive manufacturing cellular structures, Compton column 14 lines 26-32 teach:
The shape of the shift function is bilinear when n=1 and quadratic when n=2. Higher values of n are contemplated as well. Examples of gradients resulting from these functions are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. The effect in cellular gradients within the domain from varying the parameters of equations (3) and (4) can be seen, for example, in FIGS. 5D-5F.
A quadratic shift function corresponds with a quadratic SDF along a transition distance. A bilinear shift function corresponds with a linear SDF along a transition distance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester and Compton. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use shift functions into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “designing graded cellular structures with tailored and unique combinations of static and dynamic properties.” See Compton column 2 lines 4-6.
Claim 15 further recites “and process the CAD object comprising the transition structure in support of physical manufacture of the CAD object.” Kuester figure 2 shows “print hollow 3D object” (40). Printing the object corresponds with a physical manufacture of the CAD object. One or more preceding steps of Kuester figure 2 corresponds with processing the CAD object in support of the manufacture of “print hollow 3D object” (40).
Dependent claims 17-19 are substantially similar to claims 3-5 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuester and Compton as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 9,811,620 B2 Ruto, et al. [herein “Ruto”].
Claim 2 further recites “2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion along the transition distance in which the secondary SDF is quadratic is within a single unit cell distance from the external surface.” Kuester column 7 lines 58-59 disclose “forming a transition zone 29 between the lattice 42 and the shell 25.” Kuester column 8 lines 21-23 disclose “transition segments 126 are defined that couple the lattice 42 to the inner surface 27 of the shell 25.” The transition segments of the transition zone correspond with transition structures within a transition distance of the outer surface. The transition zone is different from the lattice volume array of unit cells.
Kuester does not explicitly disclose wherein the transition distance is within a single unit cell distance; however, in analogous art of generation of lattice structures, Ruto column 9 lines 35-37 teaches “junctions in the lattice that are potential sources of particle traps at an interface between the 3D lattice design space and a surface present in the 3D model can be identified.” Ruto column 8 lines 53-59 teaches:
Beams can be identified 405 in the lattice, where those beams have junctions lying on a surface of a solid region defined in the 3D model. This can involve looking for beams that are truncated by the surface, or checking for lattice junctions that are within a specified distance of the surface and identifying beams that extend from those junctions toward the surface.
Identifying beams with junctions on a surface and beams truncated by the surface correspond with identifying a transition distance as within a single unit cell distance from the external surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester, Compton, and Ruto. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use identification of junctions with potential to trap particles into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of avoiding particle trapping and “when the 3D model is manufactured (e.g., 3D printed), this overlap results in additional bonding of the beam to the solid region.” See Ruto column 9 lines 22-37.
Claim 2 further recites “and wherein the second portion along the transition distance in which the secondary SDF is linear is beyond the single unit cell distance from the external surface.” Kuester does not explicitly disclose a quadratic and linear portion; however, in analogous art of additive manufacturing cellular structures, Compton column 14 lines 26-32 teach:
The shape of the shift function is bilinear when n=1 and quadratic when n=2. Higher values of n are contemplated as well. Examples of gradients resulting from these functions are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. The effect in cellular gradients within the domain from varying the parameters of equations (3) and (4) can be seen, for example, in FIGS. 5D-5F.
A quadratic shift function corresponds with a quadratic SDF along a transition distance. A bilinear shift function corresponds with a linear SDF along a transition distance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester and Compton. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use shift functions into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “designing graded cellular structures with tailored and unique combinations of static and dynamic properties.” See Compton column 2 lines 4-6.
Claim 7 further recites “7. The method of claim 1, wherein the transition distance, the secondary SDF, the first portion along the transition distance closest to the external surface at which the secondary SDF is quadratic, the second portion along the transition distance further from the external surface than the first portion at which the secondary SDF is linear, or any combination thereof.” Kuester does not explicitly disclose a quadratic and linear portion; however, in analogous art of additive manufacturing cellular structures, Compton column 14 lines 26-32 teach:
The shape of the shift function is bilinear when n=1 and quadratic when n=2. Higher values of n are contemplated as well. Examples of gradients resulting from these functions are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. The effect in cellular gradients within the domain from varying the parameters of equations (3) and (4) can be seen, for example, in FIGS. 5D-5F.
A quadratic shift function corresponds with a quadratic SDF along a transition distance. A bilinear shift function corresponds with a linear SDF along a transition distance.
Either one or the other corresponding with the quadratic transition distance corresponds with at least a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester and Compton. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use shift functions into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “designing graded cellular structures with tailored and unique combinations of static and dynamic properties.” See Compton column 2 lines 4-6.
Claim 7 further recites “are specified via user input.” Kuester title discloses “Defining a transition zone between a shell and lattice cell array in a three-dimensional printing system.” Defining the transition zone corresponds with specifying.
Kuester does not explicitly disclose user input; however, in analogous art of generation of lattice structures, Ruto column 4 lines 40-43 teach “the UI 122 of the program 116 can allow the user 190 to provide input specifying one or more regions of the 3D model in which to generate a lattice 138.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester, Compton, and Ruto. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to have a user interface for user input into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of identifying “how close the portion of the lattice 138 is to specified location(s) or surface(s) within the 3D model.” See Ruto column 4 lines 50-51.
Dependent claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 6, 13, and 20
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuester and Compton as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Pasko, A., et al. “Procedural Function-based Spatial Microstructures” IEEE Shape Modeling Int’l Conf., pp. 47-56 (2010) [herein “Pasko”].
Claim 6 further recites “6. The method of claim 5, comprising generating a hybrid faceted model as the faceted model of the CAD object, including by combining the procedural-based faceted representation of the portions of the internal lattice structure outside of the expanded transition zone.” Kuester column 6 lines 63-65 disclose “All of these dimensional ranges are illustrative only and can vary depending upon the light engine 12 used and desired lattice 42 designs.” Kuester column 6 lines 50-52 disclose “Various lattices 42 can be used such as cubic, hexagonal, rhombohedral, triclinic, monoclinic, tetrahedral, and shortened tetrahedral.” Each of these lattice shapes corresponds with different faceted representations of the desired design.
But Kuester does not explicitly disclose procedural based faceted representation; however, in analogous art of modeling internal spatial geometric structures, Pasko title teaches “Procedural Function-based Spatial Microstructures.”
Pasko page 51 figure 2 shows “(b) blending union between the rods of the regular lattice, and between the rods and the spherical shell; (c) lattice parametrization depending on the distance to the external surface.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester, Compton, and Pasko. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use blending lattice and shell into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “result in smooth transitions between two given surfaces.” See Pasko page 50 right column last paragraph.
Claim 6 further recites “by combining … and a voxel-based faceted representation of the expanded transition zone generated from the SDF voxelization process performed for the expanded transition zone.” Kuester column 6 lines 29-30 disclose “Lattice 42 is an array of individual unit cells 48.” Kuester column 6 lines 50-52 disclose “Various lattices 42 can be used such as cubic, hexagonal, rhombohedral, triclinic, monoclinic, tetrahedral, and shortened tetrahedral.” Kuester column 7 lines 15-16 disclose “the lattice volume 35 defines an array of unit cells 48 that just fill the lattice volume 35.” The lattice of unit cells corresponds with the lattice structure being represented by repeating unit cells. The array of unit cells corresponds with respective voxels. The respective transition segments of the lattice array corresponds with an SDF voxelization process.
Kuester does not explicitly disclose a quadratic of a secondary SDF transition; however, in analogous art of additive manufacturing cellular structures, Compton column 14 lines 26-32 teach:
The shape of the shift function is bilinear when n=1 and quadratic when n=2. Higher values of n are contemplated as well. Examples of gradients resulting from these functions are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. The effect in cellular gradients within the domain from varying the parameters of equations (3) and (4) can be seen, for example, in FIGS. 5D-5F.
A quadratic shift function corresponds with a quadratic SDF along a transition distance.
This quadratic shift function region corresponds with the expanded transition zone comprising unit cells modified by the secondary (i.e. quadratic) SDF of the transition structure.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuester and Compton. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use shift functions into the system of defining transition zone in shell and lattice arrays for the advantageous purpose of “designing graded cellular structures with tailored and unique combinations of static and dynamic properties.” See Compton column 2 lines 4-6.
Dependent claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 6 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210062970 A1 PHAM; Minh-Son
teaches
Lattice Structures
US 11602898 B2 Kim; Seokpum et al.
Generating a graded lattice structure and their application to additive manufacturing
WO 2015042422 A1 MARK GREGORY THOMAS et al.
Fiber Reinforced Additive Manufacturing
Tao, W. & Leu, M. “Design of Lattice Structure for Additive Manufacturing” Proceedings of Int'l Symp. on Flexible Automation, ISFA (2016)
Technology background; unit cell design; conformal patterning.
Page 328 teaches lattice structure by mapping density to SIMP results.
Ameta, G. & Witherell, P. “Representation of Graded Materials and Structures to Support Tolerance Specification for Additive Manufacturing Application” J. Computing & Info. Sci. in Engineering, vol. 19 (2019)
Ameta section 4.1.1 teaches a material transition region with a linear function parameter as a material gradient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 28 September 2026
Prosecution Insights