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 .
Objection to Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation-35 USC § 112(f)
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: “request module”, “profile module”, validation module”, “certification module” in claims 8, 10, 11 and 12.
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 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “request module”, “profile module”, validation module”, “certification module” in claims 8, 10, 11 and 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 is rejected based on its dependency from above-rejected claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites “a computer readable medium". Considering the open-ended definition of the medium in the specification (para 58 “may be…..”), applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the claims cover both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the four-patent eligible subject matter. Dependent claims 14, 15 are rejected for at least their dependence on independent claim 13.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, at step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A method comprising:
receiving a request to certify a 3D object printed by a 3D printer; obtaining printer state data relating to a recorded state of the 3D printer and an intended state of the 3D printer at a time when the 3D object was printed; determining if the recorded state of the 3D printer is in compliance with the intended state of the 3D printer; and approving the request to certify the 3D object if the recorded state of the 3D printer is determined to be in compliance with the intended state.(mental process – evaluation and judgment).
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording data and reviewing models with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the output of a 3D printing process. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements have been bolded above. These additional elements are merely general components recited at a high level of generality without any specific functionality that would integrate the claims into a practical application. This is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the modeling and processes and the “3D printer” as currently claimed is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the printing process but merely receives generic compliance information for the 3D printer.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
As per claim 2, at Step 2A, Prong 1 the claim is directed to general evaluating of information (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 3, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to the general monitoring of a certification processes (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (s). Courts have found the general receiving or transmitting of data over a network to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Id. at 2106.05(d)(II.) (i.).
As per claim 4, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining if the recorded state is compliance with the intended state (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 5, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining whether recorded state and intended estate are the same (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2 the additional element of the monitoring and firmware versioning is merely an “apply it” scenario. No details are provided and this is merely tacked on at a high level of generality. There are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 6, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining requester access rights and authorizing access. (mental process – evaluation and judgment).
at Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim is directed to merely submitting and adding (storing) data to a database. The general storage of data is an additional element. However, this is not integrated into a practical application because this is a general computer component and merely an “apply it” scenario. See MPEP 2106.05(f). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 7, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining if the recorded state is compliance with the intended state. (mental process – evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 8,
At step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (system).
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A system comprising:
a request module configured to receive from a requester a certification request associated with a 3D object printed by a 3D printer; a profile module configured to retrieve from a database intended state data for the 3D printer and printer state data of the 3D printer at a time when the 3D object was printed; a validation module configured to determine if the intended state data is in compliance with the printer state data; and a certification module configured to approve the certification request if the validation module determines that the intended state data is in compliance with the printer state data.
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording data and reviewing models with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the output of a 3D printing process. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements have been bolded above. These additional elements are merely general components recited at a high level of generality without any specific functionality that would integrate the claims into a practical application. The claimed modules are also recited at a high level of generality and don’t convey any specific arrangement of structure. This is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the modeling and processes and the “3D printer” as currently claimed is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the printing process but merely receives generic compliance information for the 3D printer.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
As per claims 9-10, the claims are directed to merely describing the data being evaluated and do not provide anything additional to the abstract idea described in claim 8.
As per claim 11, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining requester access rights and authorizing access. (mental process – evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 12, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to merely adding (storing) data to a database (mental process – evaluation and judgment with the aid of a tool). At Step 2A, Prong 2, the general storage of data is an additional element. However, this is not integrated into a practical application because this is a general computer component and merely an “apply it” scenario. See MPEP 2106.05(f). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 13, even though the claim fails Step 1, as noted above, the claim would otherwise be directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a system to:
receive from a requester a certification request for a 3D object printed by a 3D printer;
identify a time when the 3D object was printed;
access to printer state data relating to a recorded state of the 3D printer and intended state data relating to an intended state of the 3D printer at the time when the 3D object was printed;
compare the printer state data with the intended state data; and
approve the certification request based on the comparison.
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording data and reviewing models with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the output of a 3D printing process. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements have been bolded above. These additional elements are merely general components recited at a high level of generality without any specific functionality that would integrate the claims into a practical application. This is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the modeling and processes and the “3D printer” and “computer readable medium” as currently claimed is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the printing process but merely receives generic compliance information for the 3D printer.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
As per claim 14, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to merely generating and adding (storing) data to a database (mental process – evaluation and judgment with the aid of a tool). At Step 2A, Prong 2, the general storage of data is an additional element. However, this is not integrated into a practical application because this is a general computer component and merely an “apply it” scenario. See MPEP 2106.05(f). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 15, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to the general monitoring of a certification processes (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
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)(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 1-5,7-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gosch et al. (US 10885214 B2).
As per claim 1, Gosch et al. teach
A method (3D printing method, Col 6, lines 16-33, Fig. 5, a computer readable memory medium, column 10, lines 44-45),) comprising:
receiving a request (print job request by the client, col 7, lines 12-43) to certify a 3D object printed by a 3D printer (A validation process is applied to certify the print job and the process is described further. Fig. 2 represents a schematic view of a system environment where a print job entity 11 is being created by the airline, air craft manufacturer for their own need or upon request of a client. The component B in the diagram represents the printing specification of the data, geometrical information regarding the component B, the SLT file, the ambient pressure, temperature of the 3D component The printing specification data are being transmitted from the print job 11 to a distributed validation network 13 ,and the specification data mentioned before being validated by the network 13.The validation includes checking for consistency, and compatibility with previously defined boundary conditions, This validation job allows the contractor to trace the printing job and the compatibility. The specification data then be added to a to a cryptographically checksum of the last log entry of the print history log encoded and added to the all-nodes N of the validation network 13. Among the data, the most recent history log with correct data will be selected for further processing col 7, lines 12-43. A certification points 12 can further be created in the system 100 and the certification point can create a certificate for the manufactured component B. The certificate only issued if each of the manufacture stages are being released by the distributed network 13. The certificate can be added to a cryptographically encoded check sum print history log. Also using a generative manufacturing method, the 3D printing device 10 can apply a check code to the corresponding certificate. col 8, lines 28-43); obtaining printer state data relating to a recorded state of the 3D printer and an intended state of the 3D printer at a time when the 3D object was printed (The 3D printing device 10 receives printing specification data from the print job entity 11 and initiates the generative manufacturing process for the component B. Here the printing specification data is considered as recorded state. The advantages of the print history log is that it allows the validation process without continuously monitoring the print process. While the generative manufacturing process is being carried out, a tracking step is provided in each of the manufacturing stages and the 3D printing device 10 is then being transmitted to a distributed validation network 13 with plurality of manufacturing parameters. The multilayer print process enables a match system with the manufacturing parameters to the printing specification data by going through the print history log. This process can be added to a cryptographically encoded checksum to the print history log in order to improve the traceability of the manufacturing process and the documentation purpose. This process is comparing between the recorded state and the intended state during the printing job. Col. 7, line 51-col.8, line 21); determining if the recorded state of the 3D printer is in compliance with the intended state of the 3D printer (While the generative manufacturing process is being carried out, a tracking step is provided in each of the manufacturing stages and the 3D printing device 10 is then being transmitted to a distributed validation network 13 with plurality of manufacturing parameters. The multilayer print process enables a match system with the manufacturing parameters to the printing specification data by going through the print history log. This process can be added to a cryptographically encoded checksum to the print history log in order to improve the traceability of the manufacturing process and the documentation purpose. This additional feature can be added only when the distributed network 13 has successfully matched the transmitted manufacturing parameters to the printing specification data stored in the print history log, col 7, lines 64 -col 8, lines 27); and approving the request to certify the 3D object if the recorded state of the 3D printer is determined to be in compliance with the intended state.(A certification point 12 can further be created in the system 100 and the certification point can create a certificate for the manufactured component B. The certificate only issued if each of the manufacture stages are being released by the distributed network 13. The certificate can be added to a cryptographically encoded checksum print history log. Also using a generative manufacturing method, the 3D printing device 10 can apply a check code to the corresponding certificate the check code can be alphanumeric string that corresponds to the last valid hash value of the certificate. col 8, lines 28-43).
Claims 8 and 13 have the same limitations as claim 1. Please refer to the analysis above.
As per claim 2, Gosch et al. teach
The method of claim 1 (3D printing method, Col 6, lines 16-ln 33), wherein approving the request (Fig. 2 represents a schematic view of a system environment where a print job entity 11 is being created by the airline, air craft manufacturer for their own need or upon request of a client. Col 7, lines 12-19.) to certify the 3D object comprises issuing a certificate of compliance for the 3D object. (A certification point 12 can further be created in the system 100 and the certification point can create a certificate for the manufactured component B. The certificate only issued if each of the manufacture stages are being released by the distributed network 13. The certificate can be added to a cryptographically encoded checksum print history log. Also using a generative manufacturing method, the 3D printing device 10 can apply a check code to the corresponding certificate the check code can be alphanumeric string that corresponds to the last valid hash value of the certificate. col 8, lines 28-43).
As per claim 3, Gosch et al. teach
The method of claim 1(3D printing method, Col 6, lines 16- 33), wherein receiving the request to certify the 3D object printed by the 3D printer comprises:
obtaining from the request an identifier associated with the 3D object (The 3D object printing job has an essential concept to monitoring the manufacturing process during the generative manufacturing of the components. A neutral entity at the digital level can be validated, here the neutral entity is considered as the identifier. In the distributed information network, a bock chain protocol can be implemented to concatenate the entries to make possible verification by the entry makers. The entire generative manufacturing process can be monitored by digitally linking the 3D print jobs ,3D print job specifications during the execution, and validate or certify the process. The entire monitoring job also can uncover discrepancies, col 3, lines 19-39.); monitoring the print job; and obtaining object data associated with the 3D object based on the identifier (The 3D printing device 10 receives printing specification data from the print job entity 11 and initiates the generative manufacturing process for the component B. The advantages of the print history log is that it allows the validation process without continuously monitoring the print process. While the generative manufacturing process is being carried out, a tracking step, here the tracking step is defining as monitoring system, is provided in each of the manufacturing stages and the 3D printing device 10 is then being transmitted to a distributed validation network 13 with plurality of manufacturing parameters. The multilayered print process enables a match system with the manufacturing parameters to the printing specification data by going through the print history log. This process can be added to a cryptographically encoded checksum to the print history log in order to improve the traceability of the manufacturing process and the documentation purpose, col 7, lines 51-63) wherein the object data comprises information about the 3D printer that printed the 3D object and the time when the 3D object was generated (A certification point 12 can further be created in the system 100 and the certification point can create a certificate for the manufactured component B. The certificate only issued if each of the manufacture stages are being released by the distributed network 13. The certificate can be added to a cryptographically encoded checksum print history log. Also using a generative manufacturing method, the 3D printing device 10 can apply a check code to the corresponding certificate the check code can be alphanumeric string that corresponds to the last valid hash value of the certificate. col 8, lines 28-43).
As per claim 4, Gosch et al. teach
The method of claim 1 (3D printing method, Col 6, lines 16-ln 33), wherein determining if the recorded state of the 3D printer is in compliance with the intended state of the 3D printer comprises:
determining, from the printer state data(specified parameter), data relating to a set of components forming the 3D printer at the time when the 3D object was printed; determining, from intended state data(desired parameter) associated with the intended state of the 3D printer data relating to a set of certified components that the 3D printer was intended to be formed of; and determining(a validation protocol), from the printer state data and the intended state data, whether the 3D printer was in the intended state at the time when the 3D object was printed(in the aerospace industry, a validation of components of the 3D printing process makes it possible to monitor manipulation of the material composition and evaluate the deviation between the specified or desired printing parameters, the number of replicates, the time of printing and other parameters. A validation protocol allows an automative remote control of 3D printing process and allows the quality control. The validation process also capable of issuing a validation certificate on the basis of protocol, col 3, lines 54- col 4, line 4) Fig. 2 represents a schematic view of a system environment where a print job entity 11 is being created by the airline, air craft manufacturer for their own need or upon request of a client. The component B in the diagram represents the printing specification of the data, geometrical information regarding the component B, the SLT file, the ambient pressure, temperature of the 3D component The printing specification data are being transmitted from the print job 11 to a distributed validation network 13 ,and the specification data mentioned before are being validated by the network 13.The validation includes checking for consistency, and compatibility with previously defined boundary conditions, This validation job allows the contractor to trace the printing job and the compatibility. The specification data then be added to a to a cryptographically checksum of the last log entry of the print history log encoded and added to the all-nodes N of the validation network 13. Among the data, the most recent history log with correct data will be selected for further processing col 7, lines 12-43. A certification point 12 can further be created in the system 100 and the certification point can create a certificate for the manufactured component B. The certificate only issued if each of the manufacture stages are being released by the distributed network 13. The certificate can be added to a cryptographically encoded check sum print history log. Also using a generative manufacturing method, the 3D printing device 10 can apply a check code to the corresponding certificate, col 7, lines 12- col 8, lines 28-43).
As per claim 5, Gosch et al. teach
The method of claim 1(3D printing method, col 6, lines 16-ln 33), wherein determining if the recorded state of the 3D printer is in compliance with the intended state of the 3D printer further comprises:
determining, from the printer state data, data relating to a set of firmware versions for processor-related components; determining(The validation includes checking for consistency, and compatibility with previously defined boundary conditions for the 3D printer), from intended state data associated with the intended state of the 3D printer, data relating to a set of certified firmware versions for processor-related components that the 3D printer was intended to have; and determining from the printer state data and the intended state data whether the 3D printer was in the intended state at the time when the 3D object was printed(in the aerospace industry, a validation of components of the 3D printing process makes it possible to monitor manipulation of the material composition and evaluate the deviation between the specified or desired printing parameters, the number of replicates, the time of printing and other parameters. A validation protocol allows an automative remote control of 3D printing process and allows the quality control. The validation process also capable of issuing a validation certificate on the basis of protocol and based on a known and specific logging standards. col 3, lines 54- col 4, line 4). Fig. 2 represents a schematic view of a system environment where a print job entity 11 is being created by the airline, air craft manufacturer for their own need or upon request of a client. The component B in the diagram represents the printing specification of the data, geometrical information regarding the component B, the SLT file, the ambient pressure, temperature of the 3D component The printing specification data are being transmitted from the print job 11 to a distributed validation network 13 ,and the specification data mentioned before are being validated by the network 13.The validation includes checking for consistency, and compatibility with previously defined boundary conditions, This validation job allows the contractor to trace the printing job and the compatibility. The specification data then be added to a to a cryptographically checksum of the last log entry of the print history log encoded and added to the all-nodes N of the validation network 13. Among the data, the most recent history log with correct data will be selected for further processing col 7, lines 12-43. A certification point 12 can further be created in the system 100 and the certification point can create a certificate for the manufactured component B. The certificate only issued if each of the manufacture stages are being released by the distributed network 13. The certificate can be added to a cryptographically encoded check sum print history log. Also using a generative manufacturing method, the 3D printing device 10 can apply a check code to the corresponding certificate, col 7, lines 12-29, col 8, lines 28-43);
As per claim 7, Gosch et al. teach
The method of claim 1(3D printing method, col 6, lines 16-ln 33), wherein determining if the recorded state (specified parameters, col 3, line 54-col 4, line 4) of the 3D printer is in compliance with the intended state (desired parameters, col 3, line 54-col 4, line 4) of the 3D printer comprises:
determining if the recorded state acceptably matches the intended state of the
3D printer (in the aerospace industry, a validation of components of the 3D printing process makes it possible to monitor manipulation of the material composition and evaluate the deviation between the specified or desired printing parameters, the number of replicates, the time of printing and other parameters. A validation protocol allows an automative remote control of 3D printing process and allows the quality control. The validation process also capable of issuing a validation certificate on the basis of protocol and based on a known and specific logging standards. col 3, lines 54 -col 4, line 4). (The 3D printing device 10 receives printing specification data from the print job entity 11 and initiates the generative manufacturing process for the component B. The advantages of the print history log is that it allows the validation process without continuously monitoring the print process. While the generative manufacturing process is being carried out, a tracking step is provided in each of the manufacturing stages and the 3D printing device 10 is then being transmitted to a distributed validation network 13 with plurality of manufacturing parameters. The multilayer print process enables a match system with the manufacturing parameters to the printing specification data by going through the print history log. This process can be added to a cryptographically encoded checksum to the print history log in order to improve the traceability of the manufacturing process and the documentation purpose. Col. 7, line 51-col.8, line 21).
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 has the same limitations as claim 5. Please refer to the analysis above.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 has the same limitations as claim 5 and claim 9. Please refer to the analysis above.
As per claim 12, Gosch et al. teach
Claim 12 has the same limitations as claims 6 and 11. Please refer to the analysis above.
As per claim 14, Gosch et al. teach
The computer-readable medium of claim 13(Fig. 5, a computer readable memory medium, column 10, lines 44-45), comprising further instructions to cause the system to:
generate certification data associated with the certification request of the 3D object; and add the generated certification data to a certification database (A certification point 12 can further be created in the system 100 and the certification point can create a certificate for the manufactured component B. The certificate only issued if each of the manufacture stages are being released by the distributed network 13. The certificate can be added to a cryptographically encoded checksum print history log. Here the print history log is referring to the database. Also using a generative manufacturing method, the 3D printing device 10 can apply a check code to the corresponding certificate the check code can be alphanumeric string that corresponds to the last valid hash value of the certificate. col 8, lines 28-43).
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 has the same limitations as claim 3. Please refer to the analysis above.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gosch et al. (US 10885214 B2) in view of Lewis (US 20120130753 A1).
As per claim 6, although Gosch et al. teach
The method of claim 1 (3D printing method, col 6, lines 16-ln 33), wherein obtaining printer state data relating to the recorded state of the 3D printer and the intended state of the 3D printer at the time when the 3D object was printed comprises:
submitting an access request (validation of access by verification of entry makers, col 3, lines 19-39) to access a database (print history log, col 7, lines 51-63), the database being a distributed ledger comprising a set of blocks and a set of transactions (multilayered print process, col 7, lines 51-63).
However, Gosch et al. do not teach,
determining access rights of a requester;
authorizing the access request if the access rights allow to fulfil the access request; and
adding an additional block to the set of blocks and an additional transaction to the set of transactions, wherein the additional block and the additional transaction are associated with the access request submitted by the requester.
The process of authorizing a requester to have access rights to a database in order to add data to the database is a well-known concept. This is clearly taught in Lewis, where only authorized users are allowed to access a private database to submit job updates (par. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to combine the above teaching taught by Lewis into the system taught by Gosch et al. This would have been obvious because Gosch et al. teaches that the documentation required in a validation protocol has to be unmanipulable by any parties involved, and if required, a certificate regarding the proven quality can be generated, wherein the authenticity of the certificate can easily be checked by third parties (col. 3, line 64 – col. 4, line 4). Since, authenticity of the certificate is desirable, the teachings of Lewis to only allow authorized users to have access to a database to update information (such as a certificate) would be similarly desirable since it would only allow those users to make such changes.
Claim 11 has the same limitations as claim 6. Please see the analysis above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)270-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118