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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 12/09/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/09/2025, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 7 that the claimed invention solves a distinct problem. This argument is moot, as the reasoning for the rejection has no relationship with the utility of the invention. Applicant then argues on pages 7-9 that the combined references do not teach the amended claimed invention, particularly the element “wherein the validation system is used to validate the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle.” While the examiner acknowledges that during the previous interview on December 2nd, 2025, the examiner agreed that the amendments would advance prosecution, in light of further review, and consultation with other examiners, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_2”) and Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”). The reason is primarily due to the fact that the language “prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle” is written in such a way that any 3D printed structure that cannot be test driven like a prototype vehicle, wherein the term “prototype vehicle”, as best can be understood, is defined in the specification as a vehicle that can be driven at least in a real world testing scenario, and the disclosure of the prior art covers the printing of a structure for validation prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_2”) and Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”).
Regarding Claim 1. Czinger teaches a system for a vehicle design, comprising:
a 3D printed base modeled on vehicle data representing an underside of a vehicle (Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes involve the use of a stored geometrical model for accumulating layered materials on a ‘build plate’ to produce 3-D objects having features defined by the model [paragraph 2]. FIG. 2 is a flow diagram 200 illustrating an exemplary process of 3-D printing. A data model of the desired 3-D object to be printed is rendered (step 210) [paragraph 42]. The entire frame of the vehicle may be printed in a single pass or in a few renderings, or smaller parts of the frame may be printed if the frame is further subdivided into smaller modules [paragraph 81]. FIG. 18 shows a plan view of an underbody crash structure, which can be manufactured using the AM processes disclosed herein [paragraphs 124-125]);
one or more 3D printed sections modeled on vehicle data representing parts of the vehicle, the 3D printed sections rigidly attached to the 3D printed base (As shown in FIG. 18, the frame 1815 surrounding the backbone structure means that the rectangle 1818 defines a rigid portion of the vehicle. The fuel tank 1802 is located along the vehicle center. This location places the tank at the furthest distance away from all exterior impact points and efficiently packages the fuel in a space that is often unused in many vehicles [paragraph 125]. The fuel tank at 1802 reads on one or more 3D printed sections modeled on vehicle data representing parts of the vehicle rigidly attached to the base, and the frame at 1805 reads on a frame rigidly attached to the 3D printed base, the frame comprising a plurality of members attached together in a weight-bearing structure);
a frame rigidly attached to the 3D printed base; and
one or more door panels attached to the frame, the door panels modeled on the vehicle data representing door panels of the vehicle (FIG. 14 shows an additively manufactured structural interior trim with exterior panels added for aerodynamics, aesthetics and pedestrian protection. The trim in one embodiment includes a single piece “cage”. The trim may include structural interior panels 1406 for the door, sill and floor. The trim further includes a floor 1408. Seals 1410 and 1414 may be used to seal the interior structural panels 1406 to the floor 1408. The interior trim may be bordered by exterior sill panel 1416 and exterior door panel 1412, which may be part of a separate component set from the single-piece interior trim [paragraph 115]. FIG. 15 is a perspective overview of an additively manufacture mega-dash assembled into a vehicle frame at 1504 [paragraph 118]. FIG. 17 shows how the structure described in FIG. 18 attaches to the bottom of the vehicle, and attaches to the body of the vehicle in FIGS. 14 and 15).
Czinger does not teach:
The system is a validation system for validating the vehicle design.
However, Czinger_2 teaches:
The system is a validation system for validating the vehicle design (FIG. 1D shows an example of a chassis sub-structure (or a chassis module, or a portion of a chassis module) built from one or more chassis sub-assemblies [Column 12, lines 3-9]. FIG. 1D visibly shows the structure as a tubular frame rigidly attached to the base, even describing the connector as a tube at 174 [Column 12, lines 22-36]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with the system is a validation system for validating the vehicle design as taught by Czinger_2 so as to allow the system to inspect the 3D printed structure for defects.
Czinger also does not teach:
The frame is a tubular frame, the frame comprising a plurality of tubular members attached together in a weight-bearing structure,
wherein the validation system is used to validate the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle.
However Czinger_3 teaches:
The frame is a tubular frame, the frame comprising a plurality of tubular members attached together in a weight-bearing structure (FIG. 1D shows an example of a chassis sub-structure (or a chassis module, or a portion of a chassis module) built from one or more chassis sub-assemblies [Column 12, lines 3-9]. FIG. 1D visibly shows the structure as a tubular frame rigidly attached to the base, even describing the connector as a tube at 174 [Column 12, lines 22-36]),
wherein the validation system is used to validate the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle (FIGS. 1A and 1B clearly show an example of a vehicle design to be validated prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle, as the example in FIGS. 1A and 1B are clearly not driveable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with the frame is a tubular frame, the frame comprising a plurality of tubular members attached together in a weight-bearing structure, wherein the validation system is used to validate the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle as taught by Czinger_3 because such a combination would have been obvious to try, as it would be an obvious combination of known elements in the art to produce a predictable result with a high chance of success, and so that the system can be validated before constructing the full prototype vehicle.
Regarding Claim 3. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger does not teach:
wherein the one or more door panels are removably attached to the tubular frame, such that the one or more door panels are configured to break away from the tubular frame in the event of a collision with a robot.
However Czinger_3 teaches:
wherein the one or more door panels are removably attached to the tubular frame, such that the one or more door panels are configured to break away from the tubular frame in the event of a collision with a robot (In some embodiments, the three-dimensional structure which comprises a plurality of panels or tubes is formed to meet safety considerations for the vehicle. In some cases, the at least one of the plurality of panels or tubes or the plurality of joint members is designed to break or deform in a controlled and directed manner upon a collision of the vehicle exceeding a threshold force [Column 3, lines 30-36]. A vehicle chassis may form the framework of a vehicle. A vehicle chassis may provide the structure for placement of body panels of a vehicle, where body panels may be door panels [Column 6, lines 21-24]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with wherein the one or more door panels are removably attached to the tubular frame, such that the one or more door panels are configured to break away from the tubular frame in the event of a collision with a robot as taught by Czinger_3 so as to allow the doors to attach to the tubular frame and allow them to break off in the event of a collision in a controlled and directed manner.
Regarding Claim 5. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger also teaches:
wherein the 3D printed base comprises a plurality of sealant lines (FIG. 16 is a perspective view of a 3-D printed dash. The 3-D printed dash includes fittings for all key components. These include outboard vent aperture 1602, passenger airbag aperture 1604, speaker aperture 1606, defroster ducts 1608, cross brace 1610, cluster aperture 1612, strut mounting 1614, steering column mounting 1616, hinges 1618, sill section with seal flange 1620, rail 1622 and center stack aperture 1624. In one embodiment, the HVAC unit may be mounted on the front side of the dash [paragraph 120]).
Regarding Claim 6. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 5.
Czinger also teaches:
wherein the sealant lines are machined into a surface of 3D printed material of the 3D printed base (FIG. 16 is a perspective view of a 3-D printed dash. The 3-D printed dash includes fittings for all key components. These include outboard vent aperture 1602, passenger airbag aperture 1604, speaker aperture 1606, defroster ducts 1608, cross brace 1610, cluster aperture 1612, strut mounting 1614, steering column mounting 1616, hinges 1618, sill section with seal flange 1620, rail 1622 and center stack aperture 1624. In one embodiment, the HVAC unit may be mounted on the front side of the dash [paragraph 120]).
Regarding Claim 8. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger does not teach:
wherein the 3D printed base comprises channels sized to accommodate a rocker panel.
However, Czinger_3 teaches:
wherein the 3D printed base comprises channels sized to accommodate a rocker panel (A chassis module may be a rocker panel [Column 10, lines 59-67]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with wherein the 3D printed base comprises channels sized to accommodate a rocker panel as taught by Czinger_3 so as to allow the vehicle being constructed to accommodate rocker panels.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_2”) and Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kia et al. US 20170136697 A1 (“Kia”).
Regarding Claim 2. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger does not teach:
wherein the one or more door panels are 3D printed (this is implied, but not explicit).
However, Kia teaches:
wherein the one or more door panels are 3D printed (A digital three-dimensional modeling system that generates an interior surface and an exterior surface in layer-by-layer additive manufacturing process, herein referred to as “3-D printing” [paragraph 35]. The method 10 includes sectioning at least one panel or closure 36 with a predetermined shape out of the template shell 30 or reinforced shell 34 at a predetermined location [paragraph 39]. When the template shell 30 is a vehicle body, the panel or closure 36 is a vehicle part selected from the group consisting of a door, trunk lid, hood, hatchback, fuel door cover, electrical outlet door, scoop, and a combination thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with wherein the one or more door panels are 3D printed as taught by Kia so as to allow the 3D printing system to print the doors along with the rest of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger also teaches:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front windshield (The AM (3D printing) techniques can be used to assemble and integrate the components that make up the vehicle, including the windshield [paragraph 36], and can also manufacture door panels, including interior and exterior door panels [paragraph 115]. FIG. 5 implies that front and rear doors panels are included as well, indicated in paragraph 115, but it is not explicit).
Czinger does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front door and a rear door.
However, Kia teaches:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front door and a rear door (FIG. 2 shows a pair of panels at 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front door and a rear door as taught by Kia so as to allow front and rear door panels to be printed.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_2”) and Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shah et al. US 20200160497 A1 (“Shah”).
Regarding Claim 7. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger does not teach:
wherein a surface of the 3D printed base is sufficient detailed such that it is suitable for training a computer vision system.
However, Shah teaches:
wherein a surface of the 3D printed base is sufficient detailed such that it is suitable for training a computer vision system (Referring back to FIG. 1A, once computing device 135 receives an image of the 3D object 114, the image may be processed by image inspection module 145. Image inspection module 145 may determine whether a received image is processable. In one embodiment, image inspection module 145 determines whether a contrast depicted in the first image is sufficient to enable further image processing operations (e.g., edge detection, processing by a trained machine learning model, etc.) to be performed. In one embodiment, image inspection module 145 determines a contrast metric for the image, and determines whether the contrast metric exceeds a contrast threshold. If the contrast metric is below the contrast threshold, the processing logic may determine the image is not processable. If the contrast metric exceeds the contrast threshold, image inspection module 145 may determine that the image is processable, and the image inspection module 145 may process the image using a trained machine learning model to determine whether a manufacturing defect (e.g., a gross defect, layering defect, etc.) is present within the region of the 3D object 114 represented in the image. In one embodiment, different machine learning models are used for 3D printed objects than for shells [paragraph 66]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with wherein a surface of the 3D printed base is sufficient detailed such that it is suitable for training a computer vision system as taught by Shah so as to allow a computer vision system to learn from the 3D printed surface inspection and validation.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_2”) and Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pilla et al. US 20210101322 A1 (“Pilla”).
Regarding Claim 9. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger does not teach:
wherein the 3D printed base comprises acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) reinforced with carbon fiber.
However, Pilla teaches:
wherein the 3D printed base comprises acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) reinforced with carbon fiber (The resin as the injected material can be of thermoplastic resins such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene), polycarbonate, polyamide and the like. The resin may be of homopolymer or copolymer or a polymer blend, and more preferably, include fillers such as talc, mica, bio-based or nature-derived filler and the like and materials for reinforcing such as glass fibers, carbon fibers, organic fibers and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with wherein the 3D printed base comprises acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) reinforced with carbon fiber as taught by Pilla because ABS carbon fiber printer filament has a higher strength, rigidity, and impact resistance than standard printer filaments.
Claim(s) 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_2”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”), Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) and Decrop et al. US 20220388246 A1 (“Decrop”).
Regarding Claim 10. Czinger_2 teaches a method for validating a vehicle design using a validation body, comprising:
identifying 3D data based on a desired vehicle design and 3D data associated with the desired vehicle design (In some embodiments, the seed/initial design model may be referred to as reference design. The reference design may be selected from a database that stores multiple reference designs under various categories. Details regarding the database will be described later herein. In some embodiments, the multiple designs may be categorized according to the mechanical structures such that different categories may represent different structures. For example, a vehicle chassis reference design may be selected from a category of vehicle chassis, and similarly a vehicle body reference design may be selected from a collection of vehicle body references [paragraph 94], wherein a reference design reads on a reference body);
preparing the identified 3D data for 3D printing (In layer 1 (801), after a reference design is determined, the reference model may be characterized and analyzed by one or more physical simulation and analysis software programs to establish a performance baseline of the reference model [paragraph 100, FIG. 8]);
3D printing validation parts using the identified and prepared 3D data (Integrator 219 can receive the analyzed information from the analysis components and update the design model based on the analyzed information [paragraph 47]. If the updated design model satisfies the criteria, integrator 219 can determine printing instructions 217 for a 3-D printer to print one or more structures of the vehicle based on the updated design model [paragraph 48]);
assembling the 3D printed validation parts into a validation body (paragraph 48);
measuring datum point positions on the validation body (The test results from a single simulation test's Performance Test Result vector are represented as point 1341. Constraint Line 1348 may represent a limit-horizon, imposed by other dimensions of the test result vector that are not representable on this graph [paragraph 154 and FIG. 13); and
validating data for producing prototype vehicle parts using the validation body (Referring back to FIG. 8, Layer 5 (809) may refer to the level of machine-learning optimization. At this level, design optimization may involve data from actual products and/or experiments with physical models [paragraph 140]).
Czinger_3 does not teach:
preparing the identified 3D data for 3D printing by eliminating unnecessary data and modifying surfaces to make them suitable for 3D printing; and
the validation parts including a 3D printed base representing an underside of the desired vehicle design, thereby validating the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle.
However, Czinger teaches:
preparing the identified 3D data for 3D printing by eliminating unnecessary data and modifying surfaces to make them suitable for 3D printing (A CAD program may be used to create the data model of the 3-D object as an STL file. Thereupon, the STL file may undergo a process whereby errors in the file are identified and resolved [paragraph 43]. Following error resolution, the data model can be “sliced” by a software application known as a slicer to thereby produce a set of instructions for 3-D printing the object, with the instructions being compatible and associated with the particular 3-D printing technology to be utilized (step 220). Numerous slicer programs are commercially available. Generally, the slicer program converts the data model into a series of individual layers representing thin slices (e.g., 100 microns thick) of the object be printed, along with a file containing the printer-specific instructions for 3-D printing these successive individual layers to produce an actual 3-D printed representation of the data model [paragraph 44]);
the validation parts including a 3D printed base representing an underside of the desired vehicle design (Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes involve the use of a stored geometrical model for accumulating layered materials on a ‘build plate’ to produce 3-D objects having features defined by the model [paragraph 2]. FIG. 2 is a flow diagram 200 illustrating an exemplary process of 3-D printing. A data model of the desired 3-D object to be printed is rendered (step 210) [paragraph 42]. The entire frame of the vehicle may be printed in a single pass or in a few renderings, or smaller parts of the frame may be printed if the frame is further subdivided into smaller modules [paragraph 81]. FIG. 18 shows a plan view of an underbody crash structure, which can be manufactured using the AM processes disclosed herein [paragraphs 124-125]), thereby validating the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle (FIGS. 1A and 1B clearly show an example of a vehicle design to be validated prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle, as the example in FIGS. 1A and 1B are clearly not driveable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger_3 with preparing the identified 3D data for 3D printing by eliminating unnecessary data and modifying surfaces to make them suitable for 3D printing; and the validation parts including a 3D printed base representing an underside of the desired vehicle design, thereby validating the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle as taught by Czinger so as to allow the system to eliminate error data and include the underside of the desired vehicle design, something that is implied by the disclosure of Czinger_3, since a full vehicle design would include the underside of the vehicle, and so that the system can be validated before constructing the full prototype vehicle.
Czinger_3 also does not teach:
machining lines into the validation body to visualize teaching paths for a computer vision process.
However, Decrop teaches:
machining lines into the validation body to visualize teaching paths for a computer vision process (In embodiments, GAN engine 112 is configured to use GAN algorithms to fill in the one or more gaps in the reassembled object in order to generate a 3D printable file of the complete object (pre-fracture rending of the object). GAN engine 112 is configured to fill a gap or empty space by creating an artificial piece (or filler) of the object where the gap is located that can pass as a real 3D piece. For example, this may be performed by identifying various fault lines and/or fracture points on the 3D scans of individual pieces of the broken object and recreating flat planes from the fault lines until an artificial instance or piece of the object can be generated that meets a predetermined accuracy threshold value [paragraph 35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger_3 with machining lines into the validation body to visualize teaching paths for a computer vision process as taught by Decrop so as to teach the validation system where fault lines and fracture points are likely to occur in a design.
Regarding Claim 11. Czinger_3 in combination with Czinger and Decrop teaches the method of claim 10.
Czinger_3 also teaches:
further comprising 3D printing validation parts including vehicle panels (Paragraph 92).
Regarding Claim 12. Czinger_3 in combination with Czinger and Decrop teaches the method of claim 11.
Czinger_3 also teaches:
further comprising assembling the 3D printed validation parts and a tubular frame into the validation body (In various embodiments, the design objects may be based on 3-D printed nodes that are connected together with standard structural components and parts, such as tubes, sheets, arcs, honeycomb materials, etc. The nodes (e.g., joint members) may be configured to provide a connection for multiple tubes, which may be used for the construction of a lightweight space frame [Paragraph 38]).
Regarding Claim 13. Czinger_3 in combination with Czinger and Decrop teaches the method of claim 12.
Czinger_3 also teaches:
further comprising assembling the 3D printed validation parts including vehicle frames onto the tubular frame to form the validation body (paragraph 38 covers the tubular frame, paragraph 48 covers the formation of the validation body).
Regarding Claim 14. Czinger_3 in combination with Czinger and Decrop teaches the method of claim 13.
Czinger_3 also teaches:
further comprising removably attaching the vehicle frames to the tubular frame such that in the event of a collision, the vehicle frames break away from the tubular frame (In some embodiments, the three-dimensional structure which comprises a plurality of panels or tubes is formed to meet safety considerations for the vehicle. In some cases, the at least one of the plurality of panels or tubes or the plurality of joint members is designed to break or deform in a controlled and directed manner upon a collision of the vehicle exceeding a threshold force [Column 3, lines 30-36]. A vehicle chassis may form the framework of a vehicle. A vehicle chassis may provide the structure for placement of body panels of a vehicle, where body panels may be door panels [Column 6, lines 21-24]).
Regarding Claim 15. Czinger_3 in combination with Czinger and Decrop teaches the method of claim 13.
Czinger_3 does not teach:
wherein the step for machining lines into the validation body comprising machining sealant lines into the 3D printed base.
However, Czinger teaches:
wherein the step for machining lines into the validation body comprising machining sealant lines into the 3D printed base (FIG. 16 is a perspective view of a 3-D printed dash. The 3-D printed dash includes fittings for all key components. These include outboard vent aperture 1602, passenger airbag aperture 1604, speaker aperture 1606, defroster ducts 1608, cross brace 1610, cluster aperture 1612, strut mounting 1614, steering column mounting 1616, hinges 1618, sill section with seal flange 1620, rail 1622 and center stack aperture 1624. In one embodiment, the HVAC unit may be mounted on the front side of the dash [paragraph 120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger_3 with wherein the step for machining lines into the validation body comprising machining sealant lines into the 3D printed base as taught by Czinger so as to allow the system to install sealant lines for inserting seal as needed in for the vehicle.
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_2”), Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”), and Pilla et al. US 20210101322 A1 (“Pilla”).
Regarding Claim 16. Czinger teaches a body for a vehicle design, comprising:
a 3D printed base modeled on vehicle data representing an underside of a vehicle (Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes involve the use of a stored geometrical model for accumulating layered materials on a ‘build plate’ to produce 3-D objects having features defined by the model [paragraph 2]. FIG. 2 is a flow diagram 200 illustrating an exemplary process of 3-D printing. A data model of the desired 3-D object to be printed is rendered (step 210) [paragraph 42]. The entire frame of the vehicle may be printed in a single pass or in a few renderings, or smaller parts of the frame may be printed if the frame is further subdivided into smaller modules [paragraph 81]. FIG. 18 shows a plan view of an underbody crash structure, which can be manufactured using the AM processes disclosed herein [paragraphs 124-125]), wherein the 3D printed base comprises:
a plurality of sealant lines machined into the 3D printed base (FIG. 16 is a perspective view of a 3-D printed dash. The 3-D printed dash includes fittings for all key components. These include outboard vent aperture 1602, passenger airbag aperture 1604, speaker aperture 1606, defroster ducts 1608, cross brace 1610, cluster aperture 1612, strut mounting 1614, steering column mounting 1616, hinges 1618, sill section with seal flange 1620, rail 1622 and center stack aperture 1624. In one embodiment, the HVAC unit may be mounted on the front side of the dash [paragraph 120]);
a plurality of datum points; and
a plurality of 3D printed sections modeled on vehicle data representing parts of the vehicle, the 3D printed sections rigidly attached to the 3D printed base (As shown in FIG. 18, the frame 1815 surrounding the backbone structure means that the rectangle 1818 defines a rigid portion of the vehicle. The fuel tank 1802 is located along the vehicle center. This location places the tank at the furthest distance away from all exterior impact points (a plurality of datum points) and efficiently packages the fuel in a space that is often unused in many vehicles [paragraph 125]. The fuel tank at 1802 reads on one or more 3D printed sections modeled on vehicle data representing parts of the vehicle rigidly attached to the base, and the frame at 1805 reads on a frame rigidly attached to the 3D printed base, the frame comprising a plurality of members attached together in a weight-bearing structure).
Czinger does not teach:
the body is a validation body for validating the vehicle design.
However, Czinger_2 teaches:
the body is a validation body for validating the vehicle design (FIG. 1D shows an example of a chassis sub-structure (or a chassis module, or a portion of a chassis module) built from one or more chassis sub-assemblies [Column 12, lines 3-9]. FIG. 1D visibly shows the structure as a tubular frame rigidly attached to the base, even describing the connector as a tube at 174 [Column 12, lines 22-36]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with the body is a validation body for validating the vehicle design as taught by Czinger_2 so as to allow the system to inspect the 3D printed structure for defects.
Czinger also does not teach:
a rocker panel that is disposed within channels in the 3D printed based sized to fit the rocker panel,
wherein the validation body is used to validate the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle.
However, Czinger teaches:
a rocker panel that is disposed within channels in the 3D printed based sized to fit the rocker panel (A chassis module may be a rocker panel [Column 10, lines 59-67]),
wherein the validation body is used to validate the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle (FIGS. 1A and 1B clearly show an example of a vehicle design to be validated prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle, as the example in FIGS. 1A and 1B are clearly not driveable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with a rocker panel that is disposed within channels in the 3D printed based sized to fit the rocker panel, wherein the validation body is used to validate the vehicle design prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle as taught by Czinger_3 so as to allow the vehicle being constructed to accommodate rocker panels, and so that the system can be validated before constructing the full prototype vehicle.
Czinger also does not teach:
the 3D printed base comprising acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) reinforced with carbon fiber.
However, Pilla teaches:
the 3D printed base comprising acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) reinforced with carbon fiber (The resin as the injected material can be of thermoplastic resins such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene), polycarbonate, polyamide and the like. The resin may be of homopolymer or copolymer or a polymer blend, and more preferably, include fillers such as talc, mica, bio-based or nature-derived filler and the like and materials for reinforcing such as glass fibers, carbon fibers, organic fibers and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with the 3D printed base comprising acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) reinforced with carbon fiber as taught by Pilla because ABS carbon fiber printer filament has a higher strength, rigidity, and impact resistance than standard printer filaments.
Regarding Claim 17. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2, Czinger_3, and Pilla teaches the validation body of claim 16.
Czinger does not teach:
further comprising a tubular frame rigidly attached to the 3D printed base, the tubular frame comprising a plurality of tubular members attached together in a weight-bearing structure.
However Czinger_3 teaches:
further comprising a tubular frame rigidly attached to the 3D printed base, the tubular frame comprising a plurality of tubular members attached together in a weight-bearing structure (FIG. 1D shows an example of a chassis sub-structure (or a chassis module, or a portion of a chassis module) built from one or more chassis sub-assemblies [Column 12, lines 3-9]. FIG. 1D visibly shows the structure as a tubular frame rigidly attached to the base, even describing the connector as a tube at 174 [Column 12, lines 22-36]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with further comprising a tubular frame rigidly attached to the 3D printed base, the tubular frame comprising a plurality of tubular members attached together in a weight-bearing structure as taught by Czinger_3 because such a combination would have been obvious to try, as it would be an obvious combination of known elements in the art to produce a predictable result with a high chance of success.
Regarding Claim 18. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2, Czinger_3, and Pilla teaches the validation body of claim 16.
Czinger also teaches:
further comprising one or more vehicle panels modeled on the vehicle data representing panels of the vehicle (FIG. 14 shows an additively manufactured structural interior trim with exterior panels added for aerodynamics, aesthetics and pedestrian protection. The trim in one embodiment includes a single piece “cage”. The trim may include structural interior panels 1406 for the door, sill and floor. The trim further includes a floor 1408. Seals 1410 and 1414 may be used to seal the interior structural panels 1406 to the floor 1408. The interior trim may be bordered by exterior sill panel 1416 and exterior door panel 1412, which may be part of a separate component set from the single-piece interior trim [paragraph 115]. FIG. 15 is a perspective overview of an additively manufacture mega-dash assembled into a vehicle frame at 1504 [paragraph 118]. FIG. 17 shows how the structure described in FIG. 18 attaches to the bottom of the vehicle, and attaches to the body of the vehicle in FIGS. 14 and 15).
Regarding Claim 19. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2, Czinger_3, and Pilla teaches the validation body of claim 18.
Czinger does not teach:
wherein the one or more vehicle panels are removably attached to the tubular frame such that in the event of a collision, the one or more vehicle panels break are arranged to break away from the tubular frame.
However Czinger_3 teaches:
wherein the one or more vehicle panels are removably attached to the tubular frame such that in the event of a collision, the one or more vehicle panels break are arranged to break away from the tubular frame (In some embodiments, the three-dimensional structure which comprises a plurality of panels or tubes is formed to meet safety considerations for the vehicle. In some cases, the at least one of the plurality of panels or tubes or the plurality of joint members is designed to break or deform in a controlled and directed manner upon a collision of the vehicle exceeding a threshold force [Column 3, lines 30-36]. A vehicle chassis may form the framework of a vehicle. A vehicle chassis may provide the structure for placement of body panels of a vehicle, where body panels may be door panels [Column 6, lines 21-24]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with wherein the one or more vehicle panels are removably attached to the tubular frame such that in the event of a collision, the one or more vehicle panels break are arranged to break away from the tubular frame as taught by Czinger_3 so as to allow the doors to attach to the tubular frame and allow them to break off in the event of a collision in a controlled and directed manner.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_2”), Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”), and Pilla et al. US 20210101322 A1 (“Pilla”) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kia et al. US 20170136697 A1 (“Kia”).
Regarding Claim 20. Czinger in combination with Czinger_2, Czinger_3, and Pilla teaches the validation body of claim 18.
Czinger also teaches:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front windshield (The AM (3D printing) techniques can be used to assemble and integrate the components that make up the vehicle, including the windshield [paragraph 36], and can also manufacture door panels, including interior and exterior door panels [paragraph 115]. FIG. 5 implies that front and rear doors panels are included as well, indicated in paragraph 115, but it is not explicit).
Czinger does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front door and a rear door.
However, Kia teaches:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front door and a rear door (FIG. 2 shows a pair of panels at 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Czinger with wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front door and a rear door as taught by Kia so as to allow front and rear door panels to be printed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656