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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, 5, and 15 have been amended. The art rejections are maintained with revisions in view of the amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kovalcik (US 2013/0316081).
Regarding claim 1, Kovalcik discloses a method comprising: receiving a digital representation of a plurality of objects to be fabricated via an additive manufacturing process, wherein the additive manufacturing process comprises building up each object from a plurality of layers (digital model for each 3D object of a batch, abstract); forming a first portion of each object of the plurality of objects based on the digital representation, using the additive manufacturing process ([0032]), wherein the first portion of each object comprises a subset of the plurality of layers of the object (portion of each object built up to a given point in the manufacturing process constitutes the first portion of each object, [0032]); obtaining sensor data of the first portion of each object (visual sensor, [0034]); determining whether an error is present in the first portion of an object of the plurality of objects, based on the sensor data (detect an apparent defect with the visual sensor, [0034]); in response to a determination that the error is present in the first portion of the object, modifying the digital representation selectively to remove one or more subsequent layers of the plurality of layers of the object having the error from the digital representation while the other objects of the plurality of objects in the digital representation remain unaffected (“Furthermore, the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions. After such actions occur, the printing of the 3D objects may be resumed.”, [0034]; of note, this applies to the objects where the error occurs and does not apply to others that continue printing as planned); and forming a second portion of each remaining object of the plurality of objects based on the modified digital representation, using the additive manufacturing process ([0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Kovalcik discloses wherein the digital representation comprises a plurality of images for each object, the plurality of images representing the respective plurality of layers for each object (instructions to print each layer of the batch of 3D objects, abstract, [0032] [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Kovalcik discloses wherein determining whether the error is present comprises: identifying a target geometry of the first portion of each object, based on the digital representation, determining an actual geometry of the first portion of each object, based on the sensor data, and determining whether there are discrepancies between the actual geometry and the target geometry of the first portion of each object (visual sensor comparing partial buildup against goal, a defect apparent with a deviation, [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Kovalcik discloses wherein modifying the digital representation to remove the one or more subsequent layers of the object having the error comprises: in response to the determination that the error is present, determining whether the error is correctable, and in response to a determination that the error is not correctable, modifying the digital representation to remove the one or more subsequent layers of the object (defect found, 3D model is modified to remove defective portions for future printing, [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Kovalcik discloses wherein modifying the digital representation comprises: identifying a boundary of or around the object in the digital representation, and masking or deleting a portion of the digital representation within the boundary (removing defective portions of the digital 3D model, [0034]; with reference to [0196] of Applicant’s disclosure, removing a portion of the volume of the object is at/within the boundary, as is removing the partial buildup entirely).
Regarding claim 7, Kovalcik discloses wherein the digital representation comprises a plurality of pixels representing a geometry of each object (successive portions of layers, [0002] [0026]), and modifying the digital representation comprises modifying the plurality of pixels representing the geometry of the object containing the error (removing the defective portion from the 3D model, [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Kovalcik discloses wherein the plurality of pixels are modified by converting each pixel to a baseline value (removing defective portions from a digital 3D model to form the 3D objects is indistinguishable from converting the pixels of the removed portion to a baseline value, such a change means changing that portion to not print, which is understood as Applicant’s meaning for a baseline value, [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Kovalcik discloses, wherein the additive manufacturing process comprises a high temperature lithography process (stereolithography, [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Kovalcik discloses wherein the additive manufacturing process comprises a material jetting process (pattern effector applies layers of liquid material, [0002] [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Kovalcik discloses wherein the sensor data comprises image data (visual sensors produce image data, [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Kovalcik discloses a method comprising: receiving a digital representation of a plurality of objects (digital model for each 3D object of a batch, abstract); forming a portion of each object of the plurality of objects based on the digital representation, using an additive manufacturing process ([0032]);
obtaining sensor data of the portion of each object (visual sensor, [0034]); determining whether an error is present in the portion of an object of the plurality of objects (detect an apparent defect with the visual sensor, [0034]), based on the sensor data; and in response to a determination that the error is present in the portion of the object,
performing an error correction process, wherein the error correction process comprises selectively modifying object hhaving the error in the digital representation without modifying the other objects of the plurality of objects in the digital representation (“the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions. After such actions occur, the printing of the 3D objects may be resumed.”, [0034]; of note, this applies to the objects where the error occurs and does not apply to others that continue printing as planned).
Regarding claim 15, Kovalcik discloses wherein selectively modifying the object having the error in the digital representation comprises removing the object having the error from the digital representation (“the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions. After such actions occur, the printing of the 3D objects may be resumed.”, [0034]; of note, this applies to the objects where the error occurs and does not apply to others that continue printing as planned), and the method further comprise forming a subsequent portion of each remaining object of the plurality of objects based on the modified digital representation, using the additive manufacturing process (“the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions. After such actions occur, the printing of the 3D objects may be resumed.”, [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Kovalcik discloses wherein the object having the error is removed from the digital representation by masking or deleting a portion of the digital representation corresponding to the object (suspending printing masks/deletes printing instructions for that object;; “the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions. After such actions occur, the printing of the 3D objects may be resumed.” [0034]; of note, this applies to the objects where the error occurs and does not apply to others that continue printing as planned).
Regarding claim 17, Kovalcik discloses wherein the object having the error is removed from the digital representation in response to a determination that the error is not correctable (suspension of printing for that object in response to determination it is being formed incorrectly with defects, [0034], “As such, the 3D printing system 10 may be configured to suspend printing of the 3D objects so that defective partial buildups 61 may be removed from the system 10 and their buildup restarted. Furthermore, the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions. After such actions occur, the printing of the 3D objects may be resumed.”).
Regarding claim 18, Kovalcik discloses wherein selectively modifying the object having the error in the digital representation comprises one or more of the following: changing a geometry of the portion of the object in the digital representation, or changing a geometry of a subsequent portion of the object in the digital representation (Furthermore, the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions, [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, Kovalcik discloses further comprising forming a subsequent portion of each remaining object of the plurality of objects based on the modified digital representation, using the additive manufacturing process ([0034], “Furthermore, the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions. After such actions occur, the printing of the 3D objects may be resumed”).
Regarding claim 20, Kovalcik discloses wherein the error correction process further comprises removing a region of the portion of the object containing the error ([0034], “Furthermore, the digital 3D model used to form the 3D objects may be modified to remove the defective portions”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalcik (US 2013/0316081) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mehr (US 2019/0227525).
Regarding claim 3, Kovalcik is not explicit as to what the defects are or how they are caused.
However, in the same field of endeavor of sensors to detect errors in real-time during additive manufacturing, ([0004] [0032]), Mehr teaches wherein the error comprises one or more of the following: deposition of an incorrect amount of material (fixing the defect by changing the thickness means applying a different amount of material than the instructions that produced the defect, [0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kovalcik so that the error being detected is a deposition of an incorrect amount of material because Kovalcik is silent as to the defect and [0032] of Mehr teaches that a defect in this technical context can be corrected by depositing a different amount of material (different thickness).
Regarding claims 9-10, Kovalcik is silent as to whether one or more curable materials are used.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing ([0004]), Mehr teaches wherein the additive manufacturing process uses a single curable material (one or more materials, [0004] [0006] [0109]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kovalcik to use a single curable material as in claim 9, or two or more different curable materials as in claim 10 because Kovalcik is silent on the number of different materials and [0004] [0006] [0109] of Mehr teaches that adaptive control processes, which in the present context pertain to additive manufacturing with layer by layer monitoring, may have embodiments with one material or more than one material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kovalcik does not disclose “modifying the digital representation to selectively remove one or more subsequent layers of the plurality of layers of the object having the error from the digital representation while the other objects of the plurality of objects in the digital representation remain unaffected.” This argument is not persuasive as [0034] of Kovalcik teaches not printing further layers of the object having the error while continuing to print others that do not have the error.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that Kovalcik does not disclose "in response to a determination that the error is present in the portion of the object, performing an error correction process, wherein the error correction process comprises selectively modifying the object having the error in the digital representation without modifying the other objects of the plurality of objects in the digital representation." In so doing, Applicant points to further advantages of certain embodiments of Kovalcik, wherein the flaw is in the digital model itself, and is therefore fixable before an error occurs in other objects. This is not the case where the error is not caused by a flaw in the model, where Kovalcik stops printing for that flawed object.
Applicant’s next argument misunderstands this point, arguing, “Kovalcik's method would not include any modifications to the digital model for the object with the error because there is no defect in the digital model to correct.” This argument is not persuasive because eliminating print instructions for a particular object “modif[ies] the digital representation to selectively remove one or more subsequent layers of the plurality of layers of the object having the error from the digital representation.” Of note, this is disclosed by Applicant, (see 424 (Fig. 4B), 728 (Fig. 7B), and 808, (Fig. 8A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J. DeRusso/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights