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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 23-24, 28 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, “optionally” renders the scope of the claim unclear;
Claim 23, “the address” lacks proper antecedent basis;
Claim 24, “and/or” makes the scope ambiguous;
Claim 28, “the manufacturing identifier” lacks proper antecedent basis; and
Claim 31, who/what does the term “which” refer to? The installation or the manufacturer? Further, what is being assigned “as a supplier”? Is it the installation, the manufacturer or the first computing infrastructure? Further, “as one of a wearing part and replacement part supplier” is confusingly worded.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 16, 24-25, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0105903 A1 (hereinafter: ‘903).
As per claim 16, ‘903 discloses a system comprising:
a first computing infrastructure with a web server that is configured to provide a user interface for a component selection by a user logged into the web server (e.g., See ‘903; [0046], [0056] and [0078], which discloses a user using a web page of a website server, that the user has logged into, to search and select printable items);
a second computing infrastructure that is connectable to a plurality of additive manufacturing devices of a plurality of local networks for operating the additive manufacturing devices (e.g., See ‘903; [0042], [0043] and [0046], which disclose a print server, that can connect over data networks (e.g., LANs) to multiple 3D printers, for delivering print jobs to the printers);
wherein:
the first computing infrastructure is configured to send instructions, which prompt an additive manufacturing device to additively manufacture the selected component in a plurality of layers, and a manufacturer identifier, which references an additive manufacturing device associated with the logged-in user, to the second computing infrastructure (e.g., See ‘903; [0027], [0046], [0048] and [0054], which disclose that a user submits a print job through a web server with a selected printer (or group) identifier, and the web server sends the print job and printer identifier to the print server, for layer by layer fabrication ); and
the second computing infrastructure is configured to receive the instructions and the manufacturer identifier and prompt the additive manufacturing device referenced in the received manufacturer identifier to additively manufacture the selected component according to the received instructions (e.g., See ‘903; [0046], [0048] and [0054], which disclose the print server receiving print jobs sent to the web server, then submitting the print job to the selected printer to fabricate the item).
As per claim 24, ‘903 further discloses that the additive manufacturing device associated with the logged-in user is specified by a data set stored in the first computing infrastructure and/or can be selected, specified and/or changed by means of the user interface by the logged-in user (e.g., See ‘903; [0046], [0078] and [0094], which disclose that the server maintains a list of available 3D printers and the logged in user can select the printer they prefer via the user interface).
As per claim 25, ‘903 further discloses that the component can be selected from a group of components by the user logged into the web server by means of the user interface, wherein instructions which cause an additive manufacturing device to additively manufacture the respective component in a plurality of layers are stored in a data memory of the first computing infrastructure for each selectable component of the group (e.g., See ‘903; [0046], [0049], [0054] and [0056], which disclose the user picking a model from a server database, wherein the server stores each models print data that is used for printing the item associated by the model).
As per claim 28, ‘903 further discloses that the second computing infrastructure is configured to receive from the additive manufacturing device referenced in the manufacturing identifier an execution status indicating a status of an additive manufacturing of the selected component, and to send the received execution status to the first computing infrastructure (e.g., See ‘903; [0046], which disclose the print server checking the selected printer’s status and displaying the status to a user through the web server).
As per claim 35, the claim recites a computer-based method which corresponds to the system of claim 16. For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 16, ‘903 discloses the same features and therefore anticipates claim 35 as well, and the rational set forth in the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0105903 A1 (hereinafter: ‘903), as applied to claim 16, from above, in view of BRAND, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0311034 A1 (hereinafter: ‘034).
As per claim 17, as best understood, this claim further requires the second system (second computing infrastructure) to have memory (data memory) having an address, wherein the second system sends the memory address to the first system (first computing infrastructure), wherein the first system receives the memory address and then sends the print job data (instructions) to the memory address of the second system.
This feature is not disclosed by ‘903.
However, it is disclosed ‘034 (e.g., See ‘034; [0049], [0050] and [0062], which disclose the system sending signed-URL storage addresses to a client and the client uploading file data to those URL’s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘034 into ‘903 so that print data uploads straight to cloud storage, thereby reducing server workload and making printing faster and easier to scale.
As per claim 18, ‘903 in view of ‘034 further discloses that the memory be cloud memory and the address be a URL (e.g., See ‘034; [0044] and [0049], which disclose using cloud storage and the address being a URL).
As per claim 19, ‘903 in view of ‘034 further discloses that the second system sends the address of the data memory to the additive manufacturing device referenced in the manufacturer identifier (e.g., See ‘034; [0057] and [0087], which disclose the server sending the printer signed cloud storage URL’s so the printer can retrieve the needed file data from the memory address).
As per claim 20, ‘903 in view of ‘034 further discloses that the second system sends the address of the data memory to the additive manufacturing device referenced in the manufacturer identifier after the first computing infrastructure has sent the print job data to the address of the data memory (e.g., See ‘034; [0057], [0087] and [0088], which disclose that the printer receives a cloud file that includes signed URL’s and then uses the received address(es) to retrieve file data from the cloud storage).
As per claim 21, ‘903 in view of ‘034 further discloses that the second system prompts the additive manufacturing device referenced in the manufacturer identifier to load the print data from the sent address (e.g., See ‘034; [0058], [0087] and [0088], which disclose the system sending a cloud file with signed URL address(es) to the device, thereby prompting the device to use the received address(es) to load the print data from cloud storage).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0105903 A1 (hereinafter: ‘903), as applied to claim 16, from above, in view of Nakamura, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0257526 A1 (hereinafter: ‘526).
As per claim 22, ‘903 does not specifically disclose:
(a) the first system sends a request to the second system in response to a selection of the component by a user logged into the web server; and
(b) the second system sends to the first system, in response to the request, an order identifier for referencing a manufacturing order for additive manufacturing of the selected component.
‘526 discloses (a) (e.g., See ‘526; [0076], which discloses a client device sending a print job data request to the server, which matches the first system sending a request to the second system); and
‘526 discloses (b) (e.g., See ‘526; [0076] and [0085], which disclose that in response to a print job data request, the server sends print job data that includes a print job ID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘526 into ‘903 for the purpose of assigning each print job a unique ID so the system can track the correct print job and avoids mix ups.
As per claim 23, ‘903 in view of ‘526 further discloses that the second system is configured to send the address together with the order identifier to the first system (e.g., See ‘526; [0062], [0076] and [0085], which disclose that in response to a request from the printer, the server sends print job data which includes an ID to the printer).
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0105903 A1 (hereinafter: ‘903), as applied to claim 16, from above, in view of Isbjörnssund, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0350278 A1 (‘278).
As per claim 26, ‘903 does not specifically disclose (at least one of) that:
(a) the second computing infrastructure is configured to communicate with the plurality of additive manufacturing devices via a virtual private network; or
(b) that the first computing infrastructure is configured to authenticate itself to the second computing infrastructure, and the second computing infrastructure is configured to authenticate the authenticating first infrastructure.
‘278 appears to disclose both of these features (e.g., See ‘278; [0029] and [0074], which disclose the printer creating a VPN link to a streaming virtual machine, so that print communications occur through a private network; Further, See ‘278, [0028], [0083] and [0084], which disclose using two way SSL and personal certificates to verify both sides before allowing the secure connection to start).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘278 into ‘903 so that the print server and printers use a VPN and mutual certificate authentication, thereby keeping print jobs safe from hacking and preventing unauthorized or fake devices from accessing the system.
As per claim 27, and as best understood, ‘903 in view of ‘278 further discloses that the second system communicates with printers via a private VPN only with approved printers, and communicates with the first system over the Internet only with the authenticated first system (e.g., See ‘278; [0029] and [0075], which disclose multiple registered printers communicating with the server via a VPN, wherein the VPN connection is permitted only for authorized printers with proper certificates; also See ‘278; [0050] and [0083]v , which disclose communicating over the Internet using mutual SSL or personal certificates, wherein the communication is permitted only when proper authentication has occurred).
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0105903 A1 (hereinafter: ‘903), as applied to claims 28 and 16, respectively, from above, in view of Posillico et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0110494 A1 (hereinafter: ‘494).
As per claim 29, ‘903 does not specifically disclose that the first computing infrastructure is configured to receive the execution status sent by the second computing infrastructure and to adjust an access right with which a selection of the component for the logged-in user is enabled, based on the received execution status.
‘494 appears to discloses these features (e.g., See ‘494; [0077] and [0079], which disclose that after successful printing, the device reports its print status to the system, deletes the file, and the user must purchase print rights again for a new print).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘494 into ‘903 so that the system can effectively stop people from reusing the same print file over and over.
As per claim 30, ‘903 in view of ‘494 further discloses that an access right with which a selection of the component is enabled is modifiable via the user interface by the user logged into the web server (e.g., See ‘494; [0074] and [0079], which discloses that a logged in user, via a website user interface, can enable printing by entering payment details, including paying again for additional prints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘494 into ‘903 for the purpose of letting users buy or renew print rights so the system controls who can print and when.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0105903 A1 (hereinafter: ‘903), as applied to claim 16, from above, in view of Hassman, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0267518 A1 (hereinafter: ‘518).
As per claim 31, as best understood, this claim further requires the system linking to a manufacturer’s plant, wherein at least one of:
(a) the print server is tied to the printer’s maker; and/or
(b) the printer is in the plant as a spare part supplier.
‘518 adequately discloses these features (e.g., See ‘518; [0043], [0047] and [0067], which disclose choosing a manufacturer facility, sending a digital part file to the facility, and using a supplier provided part file to make replacement parts on demand).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘494 into ‘903 for the purpose of letting a manufacturer send a part file to its chosen facility to 3D print replacement parts on demand, thereby speeding up repairs and reducing the need for holding spare part inventory that may or may not be needed.
As per claim 32, ‘903 in view of ‘518 further disclose the installation being a production installation or a container processing installation (e.g., See ‘518; [0016] and [0043], which disclose manufacturers with multiple manufacturing (production) machines at a site).
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0105903 A1 (hereinafter: ‘903), as applied to claim 16, respectively, from above, in view of BRUCH, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0107845 A1 (hereinafter: ‘845).
As per claim 33, ‘903 does not specifically disclose that the component to be additively manufactured is a replacement part or a wearing part of a container-processing installation for processing containers.
‘845 discloses these features (e.g., see ‘845; [0003], [0004] and [0005], which disclose container treatment installations using interchangeable guide parts that are swapped out)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘845 into ‘903 for the purpose of quickly 3D printing replacement parts for container processing machines, so that repairs are faster and downtime is reduced.
As per claim 34, ‘903 in view of ‘845 further disclose that the replacement part or the wearing part includes 34. one of a format part, a container guide rail, a container guide, a container holder, and a container clamp (e.g., See ‘845; [0084], which discloses formatting parts with container guide rails for guiding bottles, which are replaceable parts used in container treatment installations).
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 8,562,324 B2, which discloses a web server that allows a user to submit 3D print jobs, pick printers, and view printer status and queues jobs across a network;
(2) US 10, 538,034 B2, which discloses an online manufacturing platform that takes uploaded designs, generates machine instructions, and routes them to different manufacturing machines while supporting monitoring and changes; and
(3) US 11,609,548 B2, which discloses a cloud service that manages multiple 3D printers, chooses an available printer using load balancing, and sends build data so the print job can be performed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 February 7, 2026
/RDH/