DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to communications filed on 7/1/26.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2014/0039663 [Boyer]1, in view of Halperin, US Patent Application Publication no. 2018/0024517.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Boyer discloses a computer system for three-dimensionally printing a plurality of objects, the computer system comprising:
one or more computer processors [a controller includes processing circuitry including microprocessors, paragraph 0019];
one or more computer readable storage media [controller software is inherently stored on some type of computer readable storage media, paragraph 0019]; and
stored program instructions on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by the one or more computer processors, the stored program instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more computer processors to:
initialize printing of each object of the plurality of objects [printer begins fabricating a multi-part print, paragraph 0057];
detect a printing failure for a first object of the plurality of objects [determine that one part has failed to print, paragraph 0057];
pause printing of the first object [stop printing the one part that has failed to print, paragraph 0057];
modify print code adding instructions to print the new object at a location [dynamic modifications to tool instructions, paragraph 0057]; and
print the new object at the location [restart printing of the first part at the another location, paragraph 0057].
Boyer further discloses that the new object is printed at another location within the printing volume, subject to capabilities of the printer [paragraph 0057], but does not specifically disclose that the location is identified from a stored set of candidate print-bed locations for each object of a plurality of objects. Like Boyer, Halperin discloses a 3D printing system that prints a plurality of objects at different print bed locations. Specifically, Halperin discloses optimizing the positioning of objects on the print bed by storing lists of candidate print bed locations for each of the objects and selecting print bed locations of the objects based on calculated optimization scores [roadmaps that describe location availability for part positioning in a given space based on nesting constraints are defined for each object and are used to determine optimal object positions, paragraphs 0017, 0021-0022, 0030 and 0045]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an optimal 3D printed object location from a stored list of candidate print locations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Halperin 3D print location optimizing teachings into the Boyer system in order to optimize the position of the objects to be printed [Halperin, paragraph 0017].
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Boyer further discloses defining, by the one or more computer processors, an offset for each object of the plurality of objects; disabling, by the one or more computer processors, an offset of the first object; and enabling, by the one or more computer processors, a new offset for the new object; wherein each offset is associated with a print-bed location of an object [specified locations (i.e. addresses or coordinates) on the print-bed for the printing of objects are offsets, paragraph 0057].
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Boyer further discloses determining, by the one or more computer processors, a maximum number of print-bed locations for an object; receiving, by the one or more computer processors, user input a quantity of objects in the plurality of objects; and providing, by the one or more computer processors, a number of print-bed locations equal to the quantity [parts of a multi-part print are printed at locations within the printing volume, subject to capabilities of the printer, paragraph 0057. The number of parts in the multi-part print would necessarily be based on some type of user input of the number of parts desired to be printed].
Regarding claims 5 and 12 Boyer further discloses printing the new object until a current layer of the new object equals a last layer [printing of the object is restarted and, if no errors occur, will continue until printing is complete (i.e. the last layer is printed), paragraph 0057].
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Boyer further discloses selecting, by the one or more computer processors, an initial print-bed location for an initial object of the plurality of objects; defining, by the one or more computer processors, an offset from the initial print-bed location for each object of the plurality other than the initial object; and initializing, by the one or more computer processors, printing of each object of the plurality of objects according to the initial print-bed locations and the offsets [specified locations (i.e. addresses or coordinates) on the print-bed for the printing of objects are offsets, paragraph 0057].
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Boyer further discloses identifying, by the one or more computer processors, the first print-bed location according to a criterion selected from a list consisting of: first print-bed location will not cause a print-head collision, first print-bed location will minimize print time, first print-bed location is randomly selected, and combinations thereof [dynamic modification of tool instructions may be performed to avoid collisions, paragraphs 0055-0056].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9 and 16 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest after detecting a printing failure of one of a plurality of objects being 3D printed, performing the combination of pausing printing of the plurality of objects at an end of a first current layer after detecting the printing failure for the first object, designating the first current layer as a resume layer of the plurality of objects, printing the new object until a current layer of the new object equals the resume layer of the plurality of objects; and resuming printing of the plurality of objects other than the first object.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of Boyer and Halperin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 September 11, 2026
1 Boyer was previously cited.
Prosecution Insights