DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/556,590 filed on 10/20/2023 in which Claims 1 – 40 were presented for examination. In a preliminary amendment dated 10/202023, Applicant cancelled claims 1- 40 and added Claims 41 – 63, accordingly, Claims 41 – 63 remain pending for examination.
Status of the Claims
Claims 41 – 49, 52, 53 and 58 – 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) and Claims 50 – 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2023 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 41 – 49, 52, 53 and 58 – 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Compton et al. (US 2019/0118486) (hereinafter, Compton) (Cited in IDS dated 10/20/2023).
Regarding Claim 41, Compton teaches a printer for printing a 3D object based on a computer model (See Compton’s Abstract), the printer comprising:
a stage defining a slicing plane (Compton in par 0008, teaches dispensing the feedstock material from the printer device and controlling the dispensing of the feedstock material to form at least one later of the cellular structure according to a first predetermined gradient. Compton in part 0119, further teaches that by applying such a thickness function, a speed of the nozzle of an AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device) may be varied as the feedstock material is dispensed to produce walls having variable thickness values),
an extruder configured to extrude material (Compton in part 0119, further teaches that by applying such a thickness function, a speed of the nozzle of an AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device) may be varied as the feedstock material is dispensed to produce walls having variable thickness values), and
a controller configured to define the 3D object with an outer contour determined by the computer model and with an inner structure defined by a pattern of lines extending in a lengthwise direction (Compton in par 0116 and Fig. 3A, teaches defining a domain 100 (e.g., the outer boundary that defines the shape of the current layer that is being printed) that is filled with a uniform cellular “infill pattern” that would result from a typical slicing operation in the normal process flow of the material extrusion AM process. This graded cellular structure, generally designated 110, can be subsequently transmitted to the AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device) to create the specified layer of the domain 100),
wherein the controller is configured to control relative movement between the extruder and the stage in an X-direction, a Y-direction, and a Z-direction, the Z-direction being perpendicular to the slicing plane, the Y-direction being perpendicular to the Z-direction, and the X-direction being perpendicular to the Z-direction and being perpendicular to the Y-direction, to thereby create the defined pattern of lines, the lines having a cross- sectional shape defining a line width perpendicular to the Z-direction and a line height in the Z-direction (Compton in par 0119, teaches that by applying such a thickness function, a speed of the nozzle of an AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device) may be varied as the feedstock material is dispensed to produce walls having variable thickness values. Compton in par 0134 – 0135 and Fig(s). 9A – 9B, further teaches a cellular structure, generally designated 190, which has a non-negligible thickness that is created by the sequential deposition of a plurality of subsequent layers on top of each other. The cellular arrangement at the front second face 194 shown in FIG. 9B has been modified with a shift function that modifies the arrangement of cells across the width and height of the cellular structure 190 at the front second face 194. The same shift function is applied in the height (y) and the width (x) directions, but different shift functions can be applied in different directions to create non-uniformity of cellular distribution in multiple directions. It may be advantageous to create cells with a variable cross-section through a thickness of the cellular structure. For example, the front and rear faces of the cellular arrangement may have identical cellular distribution patterns (e.g., either uniform or non-uniform), but the shift functions applied to the intermediate layers defining the thickness of the cellular structure (e.g., 190) can vary from that of the front and rear faces, such that an internal cross-section of each cell is different from the cross-section thereof at the front and rear faces of the cellular structure. Compton in par 0170 and Fig(s) 37A – 39E, further teaches that the cellular structure 570 is defined by a plurality of nodes, generally designated 572, spaced apart from each other according to a predefined arrangement (e.g., uniformly) within a three-dimensional domain, shown here along the x, y, and z axes),
wherein the controller is configured:
to read a user input defining at least two portions of the 3D object and a desired engineering property of each of the at least two portions (Compton in par 0136 – 0137, further teaches that the gradient is imposed separately from the computer-aided design (CAD) description of the each of the layers of the cellular structure, so that the gradient (e.g., the shift and/or thickness functions) does not need to be expressed in the CAD part. This enables a whole series of prototype components with different gradient schemes to be rapidly generated from the same CAD description of the part. The gradients are used to alter the shape and relative density of cells within an existing cellular structure, allowing a tunable change from a uniform distribution of cells to introduce some level of non-uniformity into the arrangement of cells of the cellular structure),
to define the lines of the inner structure such that they extend continuously across a transition from one of the at least two portions into another of the at least two portions (Compton in par 0116, and fig(s). 3A – 3C, teaches that the method starts, in some aspects, with defining a domain 100 (e.g., the outer boundary that defines the shape of the current layer that is being printed) that is filled with a uniform cellular “infill pattern” that would result from a typical slicing operation in the normal process flow of the material extrusion AM process. Next, a function, which can include a shift function (see, e.g., 102, FIG. 3B) and/or a thickness function, is applied in one or more directions (e.g., height, width, and/or depth) within the domain 100. Where the function applied comprises a shift function 102, the shift function 102 can have a positive, negative, or zero value within the domain 100, but must have a zero value at every location on the boundary 104, inasmuch as the perimeter region of the domain 100 for each layer is statically fixed in space according to the shape of the structure ultimately being formed. Compton in par 0120 and Fig(s). 36A-36C,, further teaches that a single layer of a cellular structure dispensed via an additive manufacturing technique is shown. As shown in FIG. 36A, a nonlinear thickness function is applied to produce a thickness gradient for the walls of each column of cells arranged across the width of the layer of the cellular structure, generally designated 530. In this embodiment, the thickness gradient is of a type that produces thinner walls in a central region 532 of the layer of the cellular structure 530 than in the outer regions 534 of the layer of the cellular structure 530, with the cell wall thickness tapering (e.g., becoming progressively thinner) gradually at each progressively inner adjacent column of cells), and
to change the cross-sectional shape of each line in the transition in accordance with the desired engineering properties (Compton in par 0120 and Fig(s). 36A-36C,, further teaches that a single layer of a cellular structure dispensed via an additive manufacturing technique is shown. As shown in FIG. 36A, a nonlinear thickness function is applied to produce a thickness gradient for the walls of each column of cells arranged across the width of the layer of the cellular structure, generally designated 530. In this embodiment, the thickness gradient is of a type that produces thinner walls in a central region 532 of the layer of the cellular structure 530 than in the outer regions 534 of the layer of the cellular structure 530, with the cell wall thickness tapering (e.g., becoming progressively thinner) gradually at each progressively inner adjacent column of cells).
Regarding Claim 42, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 41. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to define slices of the 3D object, where each slice is defined with a 2D outer slice contour determined by the computer model and an inner 2D slice structure defined by the pattern of the lines (Compton in par 0134 – 0135 and Fig(s). 9A – 9B, further teaches a cellular structure, generally designated 190, which has a non-negligible thickness that is created by the sequential deposition of a plurality of subsequent layers on top of each other. The cellular arrangement at the front second face 194 shown in FIG. 9B has been modified with a shift function that modifies the arrangement of cells across the width and height of the cellular structure 190 at the front second face 194. The same shift function is applied in the height (y) and the width (x) directions, but different shift functions can be applied in different directions to create non-uniformity of cellular distribution in multiple directions), and
wherein the controller is configured to control the relative movement between the extruder and the stage to create the defined pattern of lines in layers corresponding to the slices (Compton in par 0114, further teaches that the method is used to create at least one cellular structure having one or more gradients, as defined by one or more shift functions, in at least one portion of the cellular structure through a changing relative density and cell shape by shifting the positions and/or geometries of one or more of the cells in space. In another aspect, the method can include changing the flow rate (e.g., the mass flow rate) of feedstock material relative to the translation speed of the print head of the additive manufacturing device (e.g., a “3D printer”). These two aspects can be combined to produce a graded cellular structure having non-uniform cell distribution, geometry, and wall thickness to enable an unprecedented range of structural and transport properties to be achieved using only one base material (e.g., feedstock material).
Regarding Claim 43, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 41. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured:
to select between a plurality of patterns each being defined by a predefined range of obtainable engineering properties (Compton in par 0136 – 0137, further teaches that the gradient is imposed separately from the computer-aided design (CAD) description of the each of the layers of the cellular structure, so that the gradient (e.g., the shift and/or thickness functions) does not need to be expressed in the CAD part. This enables a whole series of prototype components with different gradient schemes to be rapidly generated from the same CAD description of the part. The gradients are used to alter the shape and relative density of cells within an existing cellular structure, allowing a tunable change from a uniform distribution of cells to introduce some level of non-uniformity into the arrangement of cells of the cellular structure), and
to define the inner structure with at least one pattern selected based on the desired engineering properties (Compton in par 0120 and Fig(s). 36A-36C, further teaches that a single layer of a cellular structure dispensed via an additive manufacturing technique is shown. As shown in FIG. 36A, a nonlinear thickness function is applied to produce a thickness gradient for the walls of each column of cells arranged across the width of the layer of the cellular structure, generally designated 530. The thickness gradient is of a type that produces thinner walls in a central region 532 of the layer of the cellular structure 530 than in the outer regions 534 of the layer of the cellular structure 530, with the cell wall thickness tapering (e.g., becoming progressively thinner) gradually at each progressively inner adjacent column of cells).
Regarding Claim 44, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 43. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to change the line width within a predefined line width range, and wherein each pattern is defined within the line width range (Compton in par 0119 – 0120 and Fig(s). 36A-36C,, further teaches that a thickness function is applied over the cellular structure within the domain of the layer being dispensed, such thickness functions can vary spatially within the domain and range between and including values both above and/or below unity (e.g., 1) within any suitable range. It may be advantageous for the values for the thickness function to range from approximately 0.5 to 2, although specific bounds for thickness functions may be outside of this range, depending on the feedstock material and/or the capabilities and type of AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device). A single layer of a cellular structure dispensed via an additive manufacturing technique is shown. As shown in FIG. 36A, a nonlinear thickness function is applied to produce a thickness gradient for the walls of each column of cells arranged across the width of the layer of the cellular structure, generally designated 530. In this embodiment, the thickness gradient is of a type that produces thinner walls in a central region 532 of the layer of the cellular structure 530 than in the outer regions 534 of the layer of the cellular structure 530, with the cell wall thickness tapering (e.g., becoming progressively thinner) gradually at each progressively inner adjacent column of cells).
Regarding Claim 45, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 43. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to define the inner structure with the same pattern for all the at least two portions of the 3D object (Compton in par 0116 and Fig. 3A, teaches defining a domain 100 (e.g., the outer boundary that defines the shape of the current layer that is being printed) that is filled with a uniform cellular “infill pattern” that would result from a typical slicing operation in the normal process flow of the material extrusion AM process. This graded cellular structure, generally designated 110, can be subsequently transmitted to the AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device) to create the specified layer of the domain 100).
Regarding Claim 46, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 43. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to define the inner structure with different patterns for the at least two portions of the 3D object (Compton in par 0135, further teaches that the front and rear faces of the cellular arrangement may have identical cellular distribution patterns (e.g., either uniform or non-uniform), but the shift functions applied to the intermediate layers defining the thickness of the cellular structure (e.g., 190) can vary from that of the front and rear faces, such that an internal cross-section of each cell is different from the cross-section thereof at the front and rear faces of the cellular structure. Additionally, cellular discontinuities (e.g., steps, or breaks, in cellular cross-sections) can be introduced between adjacent layers by applying a different shift function and/or shift amplitude to adjacent layers, such that at least some of the walls in one layer are not in contact with at least a portion of another adjacent layer).
Regarding Claim 47, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 43. Compton further teaches:
wherein the patterns are 2D patterns forming the 3D object in layers (Compton in par 0134 – 0135 and Fig(s). 9A – 9B, further teaches a cellular structure, generally designated 190, which has a non-negligible thickness that is created by the sequential deposition of a plurality of subsequent layers on top of each other. The cellular arrangement at the front second face 194 shown in FIG. 9B has been modified with a shift function that modifies the arrangement of cells across the width and height of the cellular structure 190 at the front second face 194. The same shift function is applied in the height (y) and the width (x) directions, but different shift functions can be applied in different directions to create non-uniformity of cellular distribution in multiple directions).
Regarding Claim 48, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 41. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured: to select between a plurality of materials to be extruded by the extruder, each material being defined by a range of obtainable engineering properties Compton in par 0115 - 0116, further teaches that the feedstock material used to produce such a cellular structure (e.g., an “article of manufacture”) comprises one or more of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), poly(lactic acid) (PLA), and other thermoplastics, epoxies, elastomers, reactive polymer systems (e.g., polyurethane, polyurea), preceramic polymer resins, ceramics, metals, fiber composites, bio-materials, gels, conductive inks, and battery materials. The method starts, with defining a domain 100 (e.g., the outer boundary that defines the shape of the current layer that is being printed) that is filled with a uniform cellular “infill pattern” that would result from a typical slicing operation in the normal process flow of the material extrusion AM process. Compton in par 0119, further teaches that it may be advantageous for the values for the thickness function to range from approximately 0.5 to 2, although specific bounds for thickness functions may be outside of this range, depending on the feedstock material and/or the capabilities and type of AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device), and
to define the inner structure with a material selected based on the desired engineering properties Compton in par 0116 and Fig. 3A, teaches defining a domain 100 (e.g., the outer boundary that defines the shape of the current layer that is being printed) that is filled with a uniform cellular “infill pattern” that would result from a typical slicing operation in the normal process flow of the material extrusion AM process. This graded cellular structure, generally designated 110, can be subsequently transmitted to the AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device) to create the specified layer of the domain 100).
Regarding Claim 49, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 48. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to change the line width within a predefined line width range (Compton in par 0119, teaches that a thickness function is applied over the cellular structure within the domain of the layer being dispensed, such thickness functions can vary spatially within the domain and range between and including values both above and/or below unity (e.g., 1) within any suitable range; it may be advantageous for the values for the thickness function to range from approximately 0.5 to 2, although specific bounds for thickness functions may be outside of this range, depending on the feedstock material and/or the capabilities and type of AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device). By applying such a thickness function, a speed of the nozzle of an AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device) may be varied as the feedstock material is dispensed to produce walls having variable thickness values), and
wherein each material is defined within the line width range (Compton in par 0119, teaches that it may be advantageous for the values for the thickness function to range from approximately 0.5 to 2, although specific bounds for thickness functions may be outside of this range, depending on the feedstock material and/or the capabilities and type of AM device (e.g., a 3D printer device).
Regarding Claim 52, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 41. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to change a path of the line in the transition (Compton in par 0160 and Fig. 32C, teaches a printed article of manufacture with a cellular structure, generally designated 440, that is geometrically mirrored across a vertical line of symmetry arranged through a center, or midpoint, of the article. As shown, cellular structure 440 has a cellular geometry that progresses from a hexagonal shape on the left side, to a rectangular shape, to an hourglass shape, to a rectangular shape, and finally to a hexagonal shape on the right side), and
wherein the path is changed from a single-pass section in which the line contains only one segment extending in one direction, to a multiple-pass section in which the line contains multiple segments extending back and forth in opposite directions (Compton in par 0135 further teaches that the shift function is applied in the height (y) and the width (x) directions, but different shift functions can be applied in different directions to create non-uniformity of cellular distribution in multiple directions. Furthermore, the domain over which the shift function is to be applied can be applied over only a portion of the total cellular arrangement, such that the boundary of the domain is not co-located with the edge of the cellular arrangement. Compton in par 0169, further teaches that the same or different shift functions can be applied in any number of directions and can be applied over the domain at an angle offset from the height, width, and thickness directions of the domain).
Regarding Claim 53, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 52. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to create the multiple-pass section and the single-pass section with different dimension in a direction perpendicular to the Z-direction and with the same dimension in the Z-direction (Compton in par 0134 – 0135 and Fig(s). 9A – 9B, further teaches a cellular structure, generally designated 190, which has a non-negligible thickness that is created by the sequential deposition of a plurality of subsequent layers on top of each other. The cellular arrangement at the front second face 194 shown in FIG. 9B has been modified with a shift function that modifies the arrangement of cells across the width and height of the cellular structure 190 at the front second face 194. The same shift function is applied in the height (y) and the width (x) directions, but different shift functions can be applied in different directions to create non-uniformity of cellular distribution in multiple directions. Compton in par 0172, further teaches that the shift functions and thickness functions may be applied in any direction).
Regarding Claim 58, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 52. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to arrange the line segments of the multiple-pass section in a horizontal row of line segments (Compton in par 0120 and Fig. 36A, teaches that a nonlinear thickness function is applied to produce a thickness gradient for the walls of each column of cells arranged across the width of the layer of the cellular structure, generally designated 530. Compton in par 0164 and Fig. 34B, further teaches that a shift function is applied to the cellular structure 500 of FIG. 34A, to produce a graded cellular structure, generally designated 502, having a non-uniform distribution of cells in the domain, both vertically and horizontally, as well as creating a plurality of differently shaped hexagonal cell geometries).
Regarding Claim 59, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 52. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to arrange the line segments of the multiple-pass section in a vertical row of line segments (Compton in par 0120 and Fig. 36A, teaches that a nonlinear thickness function is applied to produce a thickness gradient for the walls of each column of cells arranged across the width of the layer of the cellular structure, generally designated 530. Compton in par 0164 and Fig. 34B, further teaches that a shift function is applied to the cellular structure 500 of FIG. 34A, to produce a graded cellular structure, generally designated 502, having a non-uniform distribution of cells in the domain, both vertically and horizontally, as well as creating a plurality of differently shaped hexagonal cell geometries).
Regarding Claim 60, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 41. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to define the lines of the inner structure such that they extend as continuous straight lines across the transition (Compton in par 0044, teaches that the shift function comprises a piece-wise linear shift function, a quadratic shift function, a sinusoidal shift function, an exponential shift function, or any combination thereof. Compton in par 0118, further teaches that shift functions can be applied in one or more directions of the domain and each shift function can be of a different or same type in each direction. For example, a sinusoidal shift function can be applied in the x-direction (e.g., in the width direction), a piece-wise shift function can be applied in the y-direction (e.g., in the length direction), and a quadratic shift function can be applied in the z-direction (e.g., in the depth, or thickness, direction). .
Regarding Claim 61, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 41. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to define the lines of the inner structure such that they extend as continuous sinusoidal lines across the transition (Compton in par 0044, teaches that the shift function comprises a piece-wise linear shift function, a quadratic shift function, a sinusoidal shift function, an exponential shift function, or any combination thereof. Compton in par 0118, further teaches that shift functions can be applied in one or more directions of the domain and each shift function can be of a different or same type in each direction. For example, a sinusoidal shift function can be applied in the x-direction (e.g., in the width direction), a piece-wise shift function can be applied in the y-direction (e.g., in the length direction), and a quadratic shift function can be applied in the z-direction (e.g., in the depth, or thickness, direction).
Regarding Claim 62, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 60. Compton further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to define the lines of the inner structure such that they extend as straight or sinusoidal lines between walls forming the outer contour of the 3D object (Compton in par 0044, teaches that the shift function comprises a piece-wise linear shift function, a quadratic shift function, a sinusoidal shift function, an exponential shift function, or any combination thereof. Compton in par 0118, further teaches that shift functions can be applied in one or more directions of the domain and each shift function can be of a different or same type in each direction. For example, a sinusoidal shift function can be applied in the x-direction (e.g., in the width direction), a piece-wise shift function can be applied in the y-direction (e.g., in the length direction), and a quadratic shift function can be applied in the z-direction (e.g., in the depth, or thickness, direction).
Regarding Claim 63, this Claim merely recite a method of controlling a 3D printer for printing a 3D object based on a computer model, comprising limitations as similarly recited in Claim 41. Accordingly, Compton discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 63, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 41.
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 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton in view of LEIBIG et al. (US 2023/0330918) (with a provisional application No. 63/028,174 filed on May 21, 2020) (hereinafter, Leibig).
Regarding Claim 50, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 42.
However, Compton does not specifically disclose wherein the controller has data defining a maximum extrusion rate, and wherein the controller is configured to define a height of at least a portion of at least one of the slices of the 3D object based on the maximum extrusion rate and the cross- sectional shapes of each line in the at least two portions having different engineering property.
Leibig teaches a three-dimensional (3D) object production (See Leibig’s Abstract). Leibig in par 0058 – 0063, teaches that the maximum flow rate (also known as volumetric flow rate or extrusion rate) can be from about 0.01 g/min to about 50.0 g/min. The maximum volumetric flow rate per distance traveled by the tip can be adjusted to optimize the amount of overhang. The method comprises applying a minimum time per layer, a minimum residence time or maximum flow rate through the mixer, and a minimum volumetric flow rate per distance traveled by the printer tip. In certain embodiments, these parameters are adjusted for each layer of thermosetting material. For example, when there is an inward overhang, the 3D printing process slows down because the time per layer is shorter. Leibig in par 0153 – 0154, further teaches that the layer height and volumetric flow rate varied between prints (See table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Leibig with the teachings as in Compton to define an extrusion rate in Compton as disclosed in Leibig. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to change the extrusion rate between layers, thus preventing part buckling (See Leibig’s par 0145).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton in view Zappitello et al. (US 2017/0173867) (hereinafter, Zappitello) (cited in IDs dated 10/20/2023).
Regarding Claim 51, Compton teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 42. Compton further teaches:
Compton in par 0165, teaches that the layer 522 may be provided either via a direct dispensing method (e.g., via additive manufacturing techniques) or through application of a suitable adhesive to a pre-formed layer or substrate 520. A plurality of such layers 522 may be deposited. This substrate 520 may be flexible, rigid, fibrous, elastomeric, or any suitable type of material, such as, for example, woven or non-woven fabric, felt, polymer film, paper, foil, and the like, as well as any suitable combinations thereof.
However, Compton does not specifically disclose wherein the controller has data defining a minimum bonding area between lines in one layer and lines in an adjacent layer, and wherein the controller is configured to define a height of at least a portion of at least one of the slices of the 3D object based on the minimum bonding area and the cross-sectional shapes of each line in the at least two portions having different engineering property.
Zappitello in par 0065 – 0067, teaches that fabricating the exterior portion of the first layer of the raft may include depositing build material at a first z-axis height above the build platform, and fabricating the interior portion of the first layer of the raft may include depositing build material at a second z-axis height above the build platform, where the second z-axis height is greater than the first z-axis height. In other words, the interior portion may be printed at a greater printing height than the exterior portion of the raft. It will be appreciated that this height differential may be executed in sub-resolution step sizes. For example, where the minimum deposition layer height is one millimeter, a layer may (where the system hardware and software permits) be deposited 0.95 millimeters above the prior surface to achieve greater adhesion. By controlling height, more “drooping” may also be introduced into the interior than the exterior portion, where drooping refers to the vertical distance that the build material will drop to reach the surface upon which it is being printed. Increased drooping may promote deposited build material to contract and pull off the build platform, thereby facilitating relatively easy removal of these drooped portions as compared to portions printed at lower droop distances. When a layer is “fabricated” at a particular height, this may mean that an extruder (such as any described above with reference to FIG. 1), nozzle, or other mechanism is positioned within a build volume of a three-dimensional printer to fabricate at that height, or at some corresponding vertical position that results in a layer fabricated at that height. This may be accomplished through moving the extruder or the like along the z-axis, moving the build platform along the z-axis, or any combination thereof.
Zappitello in par 0072, further teaches the difference in adhesion force is achieved by varying the size of the exterior portion. The size of the exterior portion is about 30% greater than a size of the interior portion (e.g., greater than about 50% greater than a size of the interior portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Zappitello with the teachings as in Compton to define bounding area by controlling the height in Compton as disclosed in Zappitello. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce adhesion force and facilitate easy removal (See Zappitello’s par 0066).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 54 – 57 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118