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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 and 6 are amended. Claims 1-6 remain pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Buller (US 20180071986 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20180068774) in view of Buller (US 20180071986 A1), Albed Alhnan (US 20190125681), Fakhouri (WO 2019236493), and Shin (2016 IEEE).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Wang teaches a three-dimensional shaping apparatus (fig.1, P0008), wherein the three-dimensional shaping apparatus includes a stage configured to allow the three-dimensional shaped object to be shaped (24), a nozzle configured to dispense a shaping material onto the stage (fig.1), and an information processing apparatus for generating three-dimensional shaping data for causing a three-dimensional shaping apparatus to stack a plurality of slice layers as a three-dimensional shaped object having a predetermined shape (ABS, computing device 12, see Fig. 1), the computing device 12 includes a processor 26 and a memory component 28. The processor 26 may analyze data, execute programs, execute instructions, and control the operating parameters of the additive manufacturing system 10. The memory component 28 may be any non-transitory computer readable medium. The memory component 28 may store data, processor instructions, programs, optimization algorithms, lookup tables, models, and the like, including processor instructions for implementing the present approaches discussed herein (P0021) and that the computing device 12 is in communication with the controller 14, which controls the material flow rates out of the magnetic material supply 16 and the binder material supply 18 (e.g., via valves). For example, the computing device 12 may receive a desired ratio, or determine the desired ratio based on the representative file. The computing device 12 or the controller 14 may then determine the flow rates from the magnetic material supply 16 and the binder material supply 18 based on the desired ratios. The computing device 12 may provide a signal to the controller 14 indicative of a desired ratio of magnetic material to binder material. The controller 14 may then send commands to the magnetic material supply 16 and the binder material supply 18 to produce magnetic material and binder material at desired flow rates (P0022).
Though Wang discloses three-dimensional forming system analyzing and transmitting generated forming data to the three-dimensional forming apparatus; Wang fails to specifically disclose the information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to execute the program so as to generate, based on shaping path information indicating a shaping path of a first slice layer among the plurality of slice layers, the three-dimensional shaping data including execution command information indicating a command to be executed at each position on the shaping path; acquire first line segment length information indicating a length of a first line segment among line segments included in the shaping path, second line segment length information indicating a length of a second line segment continuously extending from the first line segment among the line segments included in the shaping path; second line segment direction information indicating a direction in which the second line segment extends; and line segment angle information indicating an angle between the first and second line segments; determine whether the angle of the line segment information exceeds a predetermined angle; change, the execution command information by adding another command therein to generate changed execution command information; and send the changed execution command information to the three- dimensional shaping apparatus by which the three-dimensional shaped object is formed, wherein the another command relates to controlling a first motor that is configured to change a flow rate of a shaping material supplied to a nozzle.
Buller, in the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, discloses a processor configured to execute the program so as to generate (P0363, P0365), based on shaping path information indicating a shaping path of a first slice layer among the plurality of slice layers, the three-dimensional shaping data including execution command information indicating a command to be executed at each position on the shaping path (P0015); acquire first line segment length information indicating a length of a first line segment among line segments included in the shaping path, second line segment length information indicating a length of a second line segment continuously extending from the first line segment among the line segments included in the shaping path (P0016); second line segment direction information indicating a direction in which the second line segment extends (P0070, angle); and line segment angle information indicating an angle between the first and second line segments (P0038, P0070); determine whether the angle of the line segment information exceeds a predetermined angle (P0051); change, the execution command information by adding another command therein to generate changed execution command information; and send the changed execution command information to the three- dimensional shaping apparatus by which the three-dimensional shaped object is formed (P0245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the process of Buller to the Process of Wang for the purpose of minimizing the amount of suspended area in a layer of a 3D printed object as taught by Buller (P0039).
Albed Alhnan, in the same field of endeavor, 3D printing, discloses a three-dimensional forming system (FFF 3D printer; see Fig. 45) comprising a control device (analytical computer; see paragraph 0299, line 2) including a forming data generating unit that analyzes path data (production data; see paragraph 0298, line 1) (see paragraph 0299, lines 1-4) including a path indicating a relative movement direction and a movement distance of the nozzle (nozzle movement speeds; see paragraph 0298, line 7) with respect to the forming table and a discharge parameter indicating discharging of the forming material (filament flow rates; see paragraph 0298, line 6) (see paragraph 0298, lines 1-7 and paragraph 0299, lines 1-4) which meets the limitation of controlling a first motor that is configured to change a flow rate of a shaping material supplied to a nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang's invention with Albed Alhnan's in order to consider data relative to the shaping path when analyzing, since doing so would produce additional parameters which may impact the quality and/or consistency of the object to be printed (see Albed Alhnan paragraph 0308, lines 15-17).
Modified Wang is not specific to a first motor configured to control a flow rate of the shaping material supplied to the nozzle, a second motor configured to change a relative position between the stage and the nozzle.
Fakhouri, in the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, teaches a first motor configured to control a flow rate of the shaping material supplied to the nozzle (P0020, “dispensing head 102 is coupled to a motor 116”), a second motor configured to change a relative position between the stage and the nozzle (P0020, “The gantry may adjust, via a motor of the gantry, the position (e.g., x, y, and/or z position, as shown by axis system 120) of the mixing and dispensing head 102 in order to create additive structures, layer-by-layer or side-by-side, or lines of extruded material, on the deposition surface 108.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first motor configured to control a flow rate of the shaping material supplied to the nozzle and a second motor configured to change a relative position between the stage and the nozzle for the purpose of controlling these two processing separately in order to create additive structures, layer-by-layer or side-by-side, or lines of extruded material, on the deposition surface as taught by Fakhouri (P0020).
As a further example, Shin discusses several slicing engines that generate executable instructions for 3D printers (2. Related Works).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate data in the form of slice layers for the purpose of easily integrating this into machine instructions as taught by Shin (5.Conculsion).
In general, the examiner would like to note that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches the processor is configured to generate the shaping path information based on slice layer information indicating the first slice layer (3.1 Layer).
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches the processor is further configured to generate the slice layer information based on shape information indicating a shape of the three-dimensional shaped object (3.1 Layer).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Erica Funk whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 5712707001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.H.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743