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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 6-11, filed 04/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of 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”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CZINGER et al. US 20220066426 A1 (“Cinger_4”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”).
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 20220066426 A1 (“Cinger_4”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”).
Regarding Claim 1. Czinger_4 teaches a validation system for validating vehicle manufacturing equipment design (Paragraph 190 talks about how a prototype model using materials from a materials database may be constructed and tested in a test module to determine that the design meets the desired parameters, e.g., safety, performance, etc. [paragraph 190], meaning that it validates the manufacturing equipment through testing the prototype that equipment manufactures), comprising:
a 3D printed base modeled on vehicle data representing an underside of a vehicle (Various assembly operations may be performed, potentially repeatedly, so that multiple structures may be joined for fixtureless assembly of at least a portion of a vehicle (e.g., vehicle chassis, body, panel, and the like, which implicitly includes the underside of the vehicle) [paragraph 521], all of which can be built through additive manufacturing [paragraph 383]);
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 (paragraph 521, the panels that attach to the body);
wherein the validation system:
is used to validate the vehicle design manufacturing equipment prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle (Paragraph 190); and
does not form part of a vehicle manufactured using the vehicle manufacturing equipment (This is implied by the language of the model being a prototype used for testing).
Czinger_4 does not teach:
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; and
one or more door panels attached to the tubular frame, the door panels modeled on the vehicle data representing door panels of the vehicle (paragraphs 176-177 teach how the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) parts library may include parts such as tubes, flat panels, but does not teach that the frame can be composed entirely of these tubular structures. Cziner_4 is silent in this regard. Czinger_4 also teaches that the parts library can include panels, but does not explain what kind of panels or how they are attached to the frame).
However, Czinger_3 teaches:
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]); and
one or more door panels attached to the tubular frame, the door panels modeled on the vehicle data representing door panels of the 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], which also reads on the door panels attaching to the tubular frame).
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_4 with 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; and one or more door panels attached to the tubular frame, the door panels modeled on the vehicle data representing door panels of the vehicle as taught by Czinger_3 so that the system can be applied to vehicle frames like the one shown in Czinger_3. Additionally, Czinger_4 already teaches that tubular components are included in the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) parts library, and so extending this to a frame fully composed of tubular components would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art as mere repetition of parts.
Regarding Claim 3. Czinger_4 in combination with Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger_4 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_4 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_4 in combination with Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger_4 also teaches:
wherein the 3D printed base comprises a plurality of sealant lines (Adhesive management module 2103 can provide information on storage of adhesives under suitable conditions, e.g., temperature control, refrigeration, etc., and can supply the adhesives to the robotic assembly cell, .e.g., retention adhesives, structural adhesives, amount to be dispensed, etc., for loading into purpose-designed dispensing systems for application to the part bond lines [paragraph 350]).
Regarding Claim 6. Czinger_4 in combination with Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 5.
Czinger_4 also teaches:
wherein the sealant lines are machined into a surface of 3D printed material of the 3D printed base (The assembly manufacturing module at 115 of FIG. 1 can perform the physical assembly of multiple components into assemblies, which can include CNC-machining [paragraph 95]. This would apply, based on the disclosure, to the part bond lines of paragraph 350).
Regarding Claim 8. Czinger_4 in combination with Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger_4 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_4 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 20220066426 A1 (“Cinger_4”) in combination with 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_4 in combination with Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger_4 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_4 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_4 in combination with Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger_4 does not teach:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front windshield, a front door, and a rear door.
However, Kia teaches:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front windshield (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. This can include a windshield [paragraph 39]), 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_4 with wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front windshield, a front door, and a rear door as taught by Kia so as to allow the 3D printing system to print the doors and windshield along with the rest of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CZINGER et al. US 20220066426 A1 (“Cinger_4”) in combination with 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_4 in combination with Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger_4 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_4 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_4 in combination with Czinger_2 and Czinger_3 teaches the validation system of claim 1.
Czinger_4 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_4 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) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_4”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) and Decrop et al. US 20220388246 A1 (“Decrop”).
Regarding Claim 10. Czinger_4 teaches a method for validating vehicle manufacturing equipment using a validation body (Paragraph 190 talks about how a prototype model using materials from a materials database may be constructed and tested in a test module to determine that the design meets the desired parameters, e.g., safety, performance, etc. [paragraph 190], meaning that it validates the manufacturing equipment through testing the prototype that equipment manufactures), comprising:
identifying 3D data based on a desired vehicle design and 3D data associated with the desired vehicle design (in the case that the 3D printer cannot print an entire large structure at one time because of a printing size constraint of the 3D printer, design subsystem 101 may split the large structure a various splitting locations so that the entire structure is divided into multiple parts that can be printed and assembled together to form the entire structure [paragraph 73]);
3D printing validation parts using the identified and prepared 3D data (paragraph 73),
assembling the 3D printed validation parts into a validation body (paragraph 73);
measuring datum point positions on the validation body (paragraph 205, FIGS. 11-13, show how points are measured on a datum plane for various bone-structures as well as x,y,z coordinates);
validating the vehicle manufacturing equipment using the validation body, thereby validating the vehicle manufacturing equipment prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle (paragraph 190),
wherein the validation body does not form part of a vehicle manufactured using the vehicle manufacturing equipment (This is implied by the language of the model being a prototype used for testing).
Czinger_4 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;
the validation parts including a 3D printed base representing an underside of the desired vehicle design.
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_4 with preparing the identified 3D data for 3D printing by eliminating unnecessary data and modifying surfaces to make them suitable for 3D printing; the validation parts including a 3D printed base representing an underside of the desired vehicle design 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_4, 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_4 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_4 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_4 in combination with Czinger and Decrop teaches the method of claim 10.
Czinger_4 also teaches:
further comprising 3D printing validation parts including vehicle panels (Various assembly operations may be performed, potentially repeatedly, so that multiple structures may be joined for fixtureless assembly of at least a portion of a vehicle (e.g., vehicle chassis, body, panel, and the like) [paragraph 521], all of which can be built through additive manufacturing [paragraph 383]).
Regarding Claim 15. Czinger_4 in combination with Czinger and Decrop teaches the method of claim 13.
Czinger_4 also teaches:
wherein the sealant lines are machined into a surface of 3D printed material of the 3D printed base (The assembly manufacturing module at 115 of FIG. 1 can perform the physical assembly of multiple components into assemblies, which can include CNC-machining [paragraph 95]. This would apply, based on the disclosure, to the part bond lines of paragraph 350).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_4”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 20210187785 A1 (“Czinger”) and Decrop et al. US 20220388246 A1 (“Decrop”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”).
Regarding Claim 12. Czinger_4 in combination with Czinger and Decrop teaches the method of claim 11.
Czinger_4 does not teach:
further comprising assembling the 3D printed validation parts and a tubular frame into the validation body.
However, Czinger_3 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]).
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_4 with further comprising assembling the 3D printed validation parts and a tubular frame into the validation body as taught by Czinger_3 so that the system can be applied to vehicle frames like the one shown in Czinger_3. Additionally, Czinger_4 already teaches that tubular components are included in the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) parts library, and so extending this to a frame fully composed of tubular components would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art as mere repetition of parts.
Regarding Claim 13. Czinger_4 in combination with Czinger, Decrop, and Czinger_3 teaches the method of claim 12.
Czinger_4 does not teach:
further comprising assembling the 3D printed validation parts including vehicle frames onto the tubular frame to form the validation body.
However, Czinger_3 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).
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_4 with further comprising assembling the 3D printed validation parts including vehicle frames onto the tubular frame to form the validation body as taught by Czinger_3 so that the system can be applied to vehicle frames like the one shown in Czinger_3.
Regarding Claim 14. Czinger_4 in combination with Czinger, Decrop, and Czinger_3 teaches the method of claim 13.
Czinger_4 does not teach:
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.
However, Czinger_3 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]).
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_4 with 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 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) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger et al. US 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_4”) in combination with Czinger et al. US 10960929 B2 (“Czinger_3”), and Pilla et al. US 20210101322 A1 (“Pilla”).
Regarding Claim 16. Czinger_4 teaches a validation body for validating vehicle manufacturing equipment (Paragraph 190 talks about how a prototype model using materials from a materials database may be constructed and tested in a test module to determine that the design meets the desired parameters, e.g., safety, performance, etc. [paragraph 190], meaning that it validates the manufacturing equipment through testing the prototype that equipment manufactures), comprising:
a 3D printed base modeled on vehicle data representing an underside of a vehicle (Various assembly operations may be performed, potentially repeatedly, so that multiple structures may be joined for fixtureless assembly of at least a portion of a vehicle (e.g., vehicle chassis, body, panel, and the like, which implicitly includes the underside of the vehicle) [paragraph 521], all of which can be built through additive manufacturing [paragraph 383]), wherein the 3D printed base comprises:
a plurality of sealant lines machined into the 3D printed base (Adhesive management module 2103 can provide information on storage of adhesives under suitable conditions, e.g., temperature control, refrigeration, etc., and can supply the adhesives to the robotic assembly cell, .e.g., retention adhesives, structural adhesives, amount to be dispensed, etc., for loading into purpose-designed dispensing systems for application to the part bond lines [paragraph 350]);
a plurality of datum points (paragraph 205, FIGS. 11-13, show how points are measured on a datum plane for various bone-structures as well as x,y,z coordinates); 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 (paragraph 521, the panels that attach to the body),
wherein the validation body:
is used to validate the vehicle manufacturing equipment prior to fabrication of a prototype vehicle (Paragraph 190); and
does not form part of a vehicle manufactured using the vehicle manufacturing equipment (This is implied by the language of the model being a prototype used for testing).
Czinger_4 does not teach:
a rocker panel that is disposed within channels in the 3D printed based sized to fit the rocker panel.
However, Czinger_3 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]).
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_4 with a rocker panel that is disposed within channels in the 3D printed based sized to fit the rocker panel as taught by Czinger_3 so as to allow the vehicle being constructed to accommodate rocker panels.
Czinger_4 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_4 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_4 in combination with Czinger_3, and Pilla teaches the validation body of claim 16.
Czinger_4 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 (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_4 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_4 in combination with Czinger_3, and Pilla teaches the validation body of claim 16.
Czinger_4 also teaches:
further comprising one or more vehicle panels modeled on the vehicle data representing panels of the vehicle (Various assembly operations may be performed, potentially repeatedly, so that multiple structures may be joined for fixtureless assembly of at least a portion of a vehicle (e.g., vehicle chassis, body, panel, and the like, which implicitly includes the underside of the vehicle) [paragraph 521], all of which can be built through additive manufacturing [paragraph 383]).
Regarding Claim 19. Czinger_4 in combination with Czinger_3, and Pilla teaches the validation body of claim 18.
Czinger_4 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_4 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 20170343984 A1 (“Czinger_4”) in combination with 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_4 in combination with Czinger_3 and Pilla teaches the validation body of claim 18.
Czinger_4 does not teach:
wherein the one or more vehicle panels comprise a windshield panel, a front door panel, and a rear door panel.
However, Kia teaches:
wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front windshield (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. This can include a windshield [paragraph 39]), 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_4 with wherein the one or more door panels comprise a front windshield, a front door, and a rear door as taught by Kia so as to allow the 3D printing system to print the doors and windshield along with the rest of the vehicle.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights