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 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 18-19 recite “matching corresponding preset processing flow according to the three-dimensional application type, comprising:” that has typos, should be “wherein the matching corresponding preset processing flow according to the three-dimensional application type comprising:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 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 limitations are:
"user side", “design side” and “preliminary processing unit” in claim 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites:
A method for preprocessing three-dimensional printing data, performed by a computer, the method comprises:
obtaining an initial three-dimensional design model and a three-dimensional application type corresponding to the initial three-dimensional design model;
matching a corresponding preset processing flow according to the three-dimensional application type; and
performing data preprocessing on the initial three-dimensional design model according to the preset processing flow to obtain a preprocessed three-dimensional design model.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “matching a corresponding preset processing flow according to the three-dimensional application type; and performing data preprocessing on the initial three-dimensional design model according to the preset processing flow to obtain a preprocessed three-dimensional design model”. The recited “matching … performing …” steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, matching a preset processing flow according to the three-dimensional application type can be done in the mind or with pen and paper by looking up a table that listing corresponding processing flow with corresponding application type. Performing the processing flow to the initial three-dimensional design model can be done in the mind or using pen and pager by splitting the initial 3D model into couple of 2D layers, as long as the initial 3D model is very simple. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “for preprocessing three-dimensional printing data” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional limitations of 2) “obtaining an initial three-dimensional design model and a three-dimensional application type corresponding to the initial three-dimensional design model”, these additional limitations represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, and are recited at a high level of generality (For example, see MPEP 2106.05(g), which notes that mere data gathering, outputting and storing can be seen as insignificant extra-solution activity). These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recited 3) “performed by a computer” are additional elements which are to implement the system. But the “computer” is recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is “computer”) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitation and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “for preprocessing three-dimensional printing data”;
2) “obtaining an initial three-dimensional design model and a three-dimensional application type corresponding to the initial three-dimensional design model”;
3) “performed by a computer”;
Regarding 1), as explained previously, merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
Regarding 2), as explained previously, are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. As indicated in MPEP 2016.05(d) II, receiving, transmitting and storing data are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Regarding 3) “performed by a computer” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “generating three-dimensional printing data according to the preprocessed three-dimensional design model” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 2 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “the preset processing flow comprises any one or any combination of the following flows: structure detecting, repairing, straightening, editing, hollowing out, typesetting, surface texture processing, support adding, simulating, slicing, gum line identifying, marking, punching and jig adding” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and recites additional limitation of “the repairing comprises: verifying the initial three-dimensional design model, and generating defect information of the initial three-dimensional design model; and repairing the initial three-dimensional design model according to the defect information to obtain a repaired three-dimensional model” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 4 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and recites additional elements of “the defect information comprises a hole defect and a reversed polygon patch defect” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept;
The recited additional elements of “repairing an edge of a hole of the initial three-dimensional design model when the defect information is the hole defect so as to change the initial three-dimensional design model into a closed model; and rotating a reversed polygon patch when the defect information is the reversed polygon patch defect so as to make a current orientation of the reversed polygon patch opposite an initial orientation; and/or the verifying the initial three-dimensional design model comprises: determining that the initial three-dimensional design model is defect-free under the condition that the initial three-dimensional design model is a closed model and a normal vector direction of a polygon patch of the initial three-dimensional design model is away from the initial three-dimensional design model” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 5 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 3, and recites additional limitation of “the straightening comprises: identifying a model feature of the initial three-dimensional design model according to the three-dimensional application type; and straightening the initial three-dimensional design model according to the model feature of the initial three-dimensional design model” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 6 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and recites additional limitation of “the model feature comprises a largest plane; and the straightening the initial three-dimensional design model comprises: determining a largest plane of the initial three-dimensional design model; obtaining a current normal vector and a target normal vector of the largest plane, wherein the target normal vector is a normal vector when the largest plane is flush with a bottom; obtaining a rotation angle and a rotation axis according to the current normal vector and the target normal vector; and rotating the initial three-dimensional design model according to the rotation axis and the rotation angle to straighten the initial three-dimensional design model” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 7 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and recites additional limitations of “obtaining an included angle between a normal of any polygon patch and a normal of another polygon patch; determining that the another polygon patch and the any polygon patch are on the same plane when the included angle is less than a preset threshold; sequentially traversing polygon patches of the initial three-dimensional design model to obtain a plurality of planes; and determining the largest plane of the initial three-dimensional design model according to the planes” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 8 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends on claim 3, and recites additional limitation of “forming a cavity in the initial three-dimensional design model” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 9 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9, and recites additional limitation of “hollowing out the initial three-dimensional design model according to a preset hollowing-out wall thickness, a preset precision value, and the three-dimensional application type corresponding to the initial three-dimensional design model to obtain a hollowed three-dimensional model” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 10 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 depends on claim 9, and recites additional limitation of “performing bottom-through hollowing-out processing on the initial three-dimensional design model according to a preset hollowing-out wall thickness and preset precision when the three-dimensional application type is a bottom-located printing application type, adding a bottom plate to a bottom hollowed area of the initial three-dimensional design model after the bottom-through hollowing-out processing to obtain a hollowed three-dimensional model; and performing closed hollowing-out processing on the initial three-dimensional design model according to a preset hollowing-out wall thickness and preset precision when the three-dimensional application type is a suspension printing application type to obtain a hollowed three-dimensional model that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 11 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 depends on claim 3, and recites additional limitations of “obtaining a suspension point and a preset support adding area of the initial three-dimensional design model” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and do not add inventive concept. The recited additional limitation of “additionally arranging support structures at the suspension point and the preset support adding area” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 12 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 depends on claim 9, and recites additional limitation of “dividing the initial three-dimensional design model into a plurality of slice images according to a preset slice parameter” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 13 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13, and recites additional elements of “the preset slice parameter comprises a preset slice layer thickness and a preset image resolution” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept;
The recited additional elements of “the preset image resolution is obtained according to a size of a molding platform; and/or the slicing further comprises: preforming an edge processing on the slice image” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 14 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 depends on claim 3, and recites additional limitation of “obtaining a first preset distance value between models, and a second preset distance value between a model and an edge of a design layout corresponding a printing platform; obtaining a plurality of typesetting solutions according to the first preset distance value, the second preset distance value and a size of a printing platform; determining a typesetting solution with the most models from the typesetting solutions as a target typesetting solution; and adjusting a position and a posture of the initial three-dimensional design model according to the target typesetting solution” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 15 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 depends on claim 3, and recites additional limitation of “splitting the initial three-dimensional design model to obtain a plurality of split models; and arranging connectors for the split models, wherein the connectors are used for connecting the printed split models” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 16 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 depends on claim 3, and recites additional limitation of “after the generating three-dimensional printing data according to the preprocessed three-dimensional design model, the method further comprises: slicing the three-dimensional printing data, and generating slice data of the three-dimensional print data corresponding to slice layers” that merely specifies some details of the “performing …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 17 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 17 is not patent eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LI CN 111361155 A.
Regarding claim 1, LI teaches a method for preprocessing three-dimensional printing data, performed by a computer (Figs. 1&4, page 6 paragraph 5 sever 800 to implement a 3D print model generating method), the method comprises:
obtaining an initial three-dimensional design model and a three-dimensional application type corresponding to the initial three-dimensional design model (Fig. 1 page 3 S100 obtaining type of protective device to be manufactured, page 4 S200 obtaining human body 3D scanning model corresponding to the type of protective device and S300 generating initial 3D model based on the human body 3D scanning model i.e. “obtaining an initial three-dimensional design model and a three-dimensional application type corresponding to the initial three-dimensional design model”);
matching a corresponding preset processing flow according to the three-dimensional application type (Fig. 1 page 4 paragraph 2 from the bottom to page 5 paragraph 1, based on the type of the protection device i.e. “according to the three-dimensional application type”, divining the initial 3D model into function areas, preset parameters in the preset table for each function area of the initial 3D model is obtained and printing material corresponding to the function type area is obtained i.e. “matching a corresponding preset processing flow according to the three-dimensional application type”); and
performing data preprocessing on the initial three-dimensional design model according to the preset processing flow to obtain a preprocessed three-dimensional design model (Fig. 1 page 5 paragraphs 1-2, the actual 3D model of the protection device is generated by modifying each function area based on the preset parameters in the preset table, together with corresponding printing material for respective function area).
Regarding claim 2, LI further teaches generating three-dimensional printing data according to the preprocessed three-dimensional design model (Fig. 1 page 5 paragraph 2, the actual 3D model of the protection device together with corresponding printing material for respective function area is converted to 3D printing model).
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 3-4, 6, 9, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI as applied to claims 1-2 above, in view of Haslam US 11497557 B2, CHEN CN 113288481 A, Miller EP 3716890 B1 and KIM KR 20200042068 A.
Regarding claim 3, LI further teaches the preset processing flow comprises any one or any combination of the following flows: structure detecting (page 4 S500, function type areas of initial 3D model is set), repairing (page 5 S600, modifying function area), editing (page 5 S600, modifying function area) and typesetting (page 4 S500, function type areas of initial 3D model is set).
LI does not explicitly further teach the preset processing flow comprises any one or any combination of the following flows: straightening, hollowing out, surface texture processing, support adding, simulating, slicing, gum line identifying, marking, punching and jig adding.
Haslam explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the preset processing flow comprises any one or any combination of the following flows: straightening (Column 34 lines 3-6 align the 3D models of pieces of anatomy), hollowing out (column 6 lines 27-29 holes are added), surface texture processing (column 6 lines 39-44 textures are selected in surface conditioning step), support adding (column 6 lines 46-48 supports are added) and slicing (column 25 lines 20-22 scan slices);
CHEN explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the preset processing flow comprises any one or any combination of the following flows: simulating (page 4 paragraph 4 simulating upper and lower jaw synchronous design) and gum line identifying (page 4 paragraph 4 the gum extending 0.2nm);
Miller explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the preset processing flow comprises any one or any combination of the following flows: marking (page 6 paragraph 5 marking the position of the support frame) and punching (page 7 paragraph 5 3D printing file with punching method);
KIM explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the preset processing flow comprises any one or any combination of the following flows: jig adding (page 2 paragraph 5 from the bottom, jig fitting to the 3D model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to incorporate the teachings of Haslam, CHEN CN, Miller and KIM, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein the preset processing flow comprises any one or any combination of the following flows: straightening, hollowing out, surface texture processing, support adding, simulating, slicing, gum line identifying, marking, punching and jig adding. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to generate 3D printable model, as Haslam teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 4, Haslam further teaches verifying the initial three-dimensional design model, and generating defect information of the initial three-dimensional design model; and
repairing the initial three-dimensional design model according to the defect information to obtain a repaired three-dimensional model (column 6 lines 39-44 algorithms are applied to the 3D model to detect and correct errors i.e. “verifying … repairing …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to incorporate the teachings of Haslam, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein the verifying the initial three-dimensional design model, and generating defect information of the initial three-dimensional design model; and repairing the initial three-dimensional design model according to the defect information to obtain a repaired three-dimensional model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to generate 3D printable model, as Haslam teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 6, Haslam further teaches identifying a model feature of the initial three-dimensional design model according to the three-dimensional application type; and straightening the initial three-dimensional design model according to the model feature of the initial three-dimensional design model (column 21 lines 57-60 anatomical feature is registered i.e. “identifying” in order to align the segmentations i.e. “straightening”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to incorporate the teachings of Haslam, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein identifying a model feature of the initial three-dimensional design model according to the three-dimensional application type; and straightening the initial three-dimensional design model according to the model feature of the initial three-dimensional design model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to generate 3D printable model, as Haslam teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 9, Haslam further teaches forming a cavity in the initial three-dimensional design model (column 6 lines 27-29 holes are added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to incorporate the teachings of Haslam, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein forming a cavity in the initial three-dimensional design model (. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to generate 3D printable model, as Haslam teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 13, Haslam further teaches dividing the initial three-dimensional design model into a plurality of slice images according to a preset slice parameter (column 25 lines 20-22 scan slices, inherently according to a preset slice parameter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to incorporate the teachings of Haslam, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein dividing the initial three-dimensional design model into a plurality of slice images according to a preset slice parameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to generate 3D printable model, as Haslam teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 16, Haslam further teaches splitting the initial three-dimensional design model to obtain a plurality of split models; and arranging connectors for the split models, wherein the connectors are used for connecting the printed split models (column 14 lines 44-52 oversized pieces is split into custom features with placement of connective pieces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to incorporate the teachings of Haslam, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein splitting the initial three-dimensional design model to obtain a plurality of split models; and arranging connectors for the split models, wherein the connectors are used for connecting the printed split models. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to generate 3D printable model, as Haslam teaches in Abstract.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM as applied to claims 3-4, 6, 9, 13 and 16 above, further in view of McAllister US 20230107540 A1.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM does not explicitly further teach the preset slice parameter comprises a preset slice layer thickness and a preset image resolution, and the preset image resolution is obtained according to a size of a molding platform.
McAllister explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the preset slice parameter comprises a preset slice layer thickness and a preset image resolution, and the preset image resolution is obtained according to a size of a molding platform ([0009] slicing layer being same thickness preset; Figs. 11a-d [0142] minimum feature size based on total size of build plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM to incorporate the teachings of McAllister, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein the preset slice parameter comprises a preset slice layer thickness and a preset image resolution, and the preset image resolution is obtained according to a size of a molding platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adapt 3D printing to different size of building plate, as McAllister teaches in [0142].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI as applied to claims 1-2 above, in view of CHEN.
Regarding claim 17, Li does not explicitly further teach after the generating three-dimensional printing data according to the preprocessed three-dimensional design model, the method further comprises: slicing the three-dimensional printing data, and generating slice data of the three-dimensional print data corresponding to slice layers.
CHEN explicitly teaches in an analogous art that after the generating three-dimensional printing data according to the preprocessed three-dimensional design model, the method further comprises: slicing the three-dimensional printing data, and generating slice data of the three-dimensional print data corresponding to slice layers (page 4 paragraph 3 from the bottom, slicing the modified model and sending the sliced model data to 3D printer for printing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to incorporate the teachings of CHEN, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein after the generating three-dimensional printing data according to the preprocessed three-dimensional design model, the method further comprises: slicing the three-dimensional printing data, and generating slice data of the three-dimensional print data corresponding to slice layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to print the modified 3D model, as CHEN teaches in page 4 paragraph 3 from the bottom.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of CHEN X CN 112008982 A.
Regarding claim 20, Li teaches the similar limitations to that of claim 1 therefore are rejected on the same basis.
In addition, Li further teaches the preliminary processing unit is configured to generate a preprocessed three-dimensional design model according to the method for preprocessing three-dimensional printing data (Fig. 1 page 4 paragraph 5 an initial 3D model module S300).
Li does not explicitly teach:
a user side is configured to obtain three-dimensional scanning data of a target; and
a design side is configured to receive the three-dimensional scanning data and generate an initial three-dimensional design model according to the three-dimensional scanning data.
CHEN X explicitly teaches in an analogous art that:
a user side is configured to obtain three-dimensional scanning data of a target (Figs. 1&7, page 12 paragraph 5 and paragraph 4 from the bottom, data acquisition module 710, obtaining scanning image data wired or wirelessly from the user side);
a design side is configured to receive the three-dimensional scanning data and generate an initial three-dimensional design model according to the three-dimensional scanning data (Figs. 1&7 model reconstruction module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to incorporate the teachings of CHEN X, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the method wherein a user side is configured to obtain three-dimensional scanning data of a target; and a design side is configured to receive the three-dimensional scanning data and generate an initial three-dimensional design model according to the three-dimensional scanning data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to establishing a three-dimensional digital model of the target object, as CHEN X teaches in page 12 paragraph 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is objected to but would be allowable if rewritten overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 depends on claim 4. LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM together teach the claim limitations of claim 4. Haslam further teaches the defect information comprises a hole defect (column 6 lines 39-44 holes are detected and covered). However, LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the defect information comprises a reversed polygon patch defect, the repairing the initial three-dimensional design model according to the defect information to obtain a repaired three-dimensional model comprises:
repairing an edge of a hole of the initial three-dimensional design model when the defect information is the hole defect so as to change the initial three-dimensional design model into a closed model; and
rotating a reversed polygon patch when the defect information is the reversed polygon patch defect so as to make a current orientation of the reversed polygon patch opposite an initial orientation;
and/or the verifying the initial three-dimensional design model comprises:
determining that the initial three-dimensional design model is defect-free under the condition that the initial three-dimensional design model is a closed model and a normal vector direction of a polygon patch of the initial three-dimensional design model is away from the initial three-dimensional design model.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 depends on claim 6. LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM together teach the claim limitations of claim 6. However, LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the model feature comprises a largest plane; and the straightening the initial three-dimensional design model comprises:
determining a largest plane of the initial three-dimensional design model; obtaining a current normal vector and a target normal vector of the largest plane, wherein the target normal vector is a normal vector when the largest plane is flush with a bottom;
obtaining a rotation angle and a rotation axis according to the current normal vector and the target normal vector; and
rotating the initial three-dimensional design model according to the rotation axis and the rotation angle to straighten the initial three-dimensional design model.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 depends on allowable claim 7, therefore is allowable.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends on claim 9. LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM together teach the claim limitations of claim 9. However, LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
hollowing out the initial three-dimensional design model according to a preset hollowing-out wall thickness, a preset precision value, and the three-dimensional application type corresponding to the initial three-dimensional design model to obtain a hollowed three-dimensional model.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 depends on claim 9. LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM together teach the claim limitations of claim 9. However, LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
performing bottom-through hollowing-out processing on the initial three-dimensional design model according to a preset hollowing-out wall thickness and preset precision when the three-dimensional application type is a bottom-located printing application type, adding a bottom plate to a bottom hollowed area of the initial three-dimensional design model after the bottom-through hollowing-out processing to obtain a hollowed three-dimensional model; and
performing closed hollowing-out processing on the initial three-dimensional design model according to a preset hollowing-out wall thickness and preset precision when the three-dimensional application type is a suspension printing application type to obtain a hollowed three-dimensional model.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 3. LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM together teach the claim limitations of claim 3. However, LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the support adding comprises:
obtaining a suspension point and a preset support adding area of the initial three-dimensional design model; and
additionally arranging support structures at the suspension point and the preset support adding area.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 depends on claim 3. LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM together teach the claim limitations of claim 3. However, LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the typesetting comprises:
obtaining a first preset distance value between models, and a second preset distance value between a model and an edge of a design layout corresponding a printing platform;
obtaining a plurality of typesetting solutions according to the first preset distance value, the second preset distance value and a size of a printing platform;
determining a typesetting solution with the most models from the typesetting solutions as a target typesetting solution; and
adjusting a position and a posture of the initial three-dimensional design model according to the target typesetting solution.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 depends on claim 1. LI teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller, and KIM together teach automatic processing is performed according to the preset processing flow corresponding to the three-dimensional application type, the preset processing flow comprises at least one of automatic repairing, automatic straightening, automatic hollowing out, automatic typesetting, automatic support adding, gum line identifying and jig adding (as indicated in claim 3 rejection); CHEN teaches the method is applied to a dental field, the initial three-dimensional design model is a dental design model, and the three-dimensional application type is a dental application type (Abstract).
However, LI, Haslam, CHEN, Miller and KIM do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
flows of different three-dimensional application types are corresponding to different processing modes, and the preset processing flows is added or deleted according to different requirements; and
a model contour feature is recognized to identify the dental application type corresponding to the dental design model; corresponding dental application type and the preset processing flow are scheduled to perform data processing.
In dependent claim 19 recites similar limitations to that of claim 18 including the base claim, therefore is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grenier US 20200302099 A1 L87 modifying scanning model of based on a model of similar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights