Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea directed to a mental process encompassing observation, opinion, or judgment, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The combination of limitations describing “(ii) linked at least to the one or more first states” represents an association of multiple printing instructions in addition to “updating the plurality of printing instructions by generating one or more updated printing instructions .” The “linking” and “updating” represent a mental process based in part on identifying prior states and need for adjusting a system state, claims 1 and 13. But for the inclusion of generic computing components, the combination of claim limitations is not meaningfully limited. The combination of limitations contemplate updated second, final printing instructions correlated to first, final printing instructions with associated second printing instructions.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the following combination of limitations represent insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g)
further comprising receiving a user instruction via a user interface., claims 2 and 14; herein the maintaining occurs in a command history, claims 3 and 15; command history comprises a command selected from the group consisting of: a traceable set targeted for the command; and a value of a trace after a switch, wherein the value of the trace after the switch is configured to determine whether at least a portion of the traceable set is re-traced for printing upon execution of the command., claims 4 and 16 ; comprising receiving a seek command from the user instruction., claims 5 and 17; directing the updated plurality of printing instructions to the 3D printer to print the 3D object., claims 6 and 18; operation selected from the group consisting of creating a segment, ordering a segment, and splitting a segment., claim 7; viewing the 3D object as a set of stacked segments., claims 8 and 19; viewing the 3D object as a set of stacked tool paths., claim 9 ; processing a plurality of individual slices or segments of a model of the 3D object using at least the plurality of printing instructions., claims 10 and 20; manipulating a plurality of individual slices or segments of a model of the 3D object via a selection hierarchy, wherein the selection hierarchy comprises the plurality of individual slices or segments of the model of the 3D object., claims 11 and 21, manipulating at least one of a plurality of portions of a tool path of the 3D printer using at least the plurality of printing instructions., claims 12 and 22
The following combination of limitations represent mere instructions to applying the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)
one or more computer processors operatively coupled to the computer memory, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively, claim 13-15 and 17-22.
The following combination of limitations generally link the abstract idea to the field of 3D printing, MPEP 2106.05(h)
3D object, 3D printer, claim 1, 6-13 and 18-21
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity described above is well-known, ordinary, or routine, MPEP 2106.05(d)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noone (PG/PUB 20180341248).
Claim 1.
Noone et al. teaches a method for modifying a final state of a three-dimensional (3D) object to be printed on a 3D printer (A) (e.g. as described below, RL algorithms are applied to original first, second, and final printing instructions represented by the STL file generated based in part on CAD), comprising:
maintaining a plurality of printing instructions usable by the 3D printer for printing the 3D object, the plurality of printing instructions comprising one or more first printing instructions, a second printing instruction, and a first final printing instruction (i) corresponding to a first final state of the 3D object and (ii) linked at least to one or more first states corresponding to the one or more first printing instructions and the second printing instruction (ABSTRACT, 0084-85 e.g. see tool path planning based on STL file as reading on first, second, and final state printing instructions for generating a 3D object, each instruction linked via sequential execution per layer)
updating the plurality of printing instructions by generating one or more updated printing instructions comprising a second final printing instruction (i) corresponding to a second final state of the 3D object, distinct from the first final state of the 3D object, and (ii) linked at least to the one or more first states (0017-18, 0140 -0141 , 0148, 0178 e.g. see determining optimal actions based on states, a last action based on a last state for determining an optimal/updated control instruction as reading on a second, final state (e.g. optimized first final state) distinct from a first final state)
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user instruction via a user interface (0169, Figure 9 e.g. see display interfaces for at least receiving user-specified programs)
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the maintaining occurs in a command history (0140 e.g. see maintaining historical training data, the training data comprising a set of actions/commands e.g. “By using the learned process model to look a bit further into the future, one can optimize the process control parameter adjustments for the next N build states as opposed to just the immediate next state. Each set of “next N states” starting from state si has a corresponding reward (i.e., the reward space for the next N actions) that can be predicted using the previously trained model that predicts the correlation between actions and their resulting state. Thus the learned model may be used to determine a sequence of actions that optimizes the sum (or weighted sum) of reward values for the next N states. “)
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the command history comprises a command selected from the group consisting of: a traceable set targeted for the command (e.g. see training data, 0140-0141, 0145; and a value of a trace after a switch, wherein the value of the trace after the switch is configured to determine whether at least a portion of the traceable set is re-traced for printing upon execution of the command.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising directing the updated plurality of printing instructions to the 3D printer to print the 3D object (ABSTRACT, 0030-32, 0042 e.g. see updating based in state action pairs)
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of printing instructions comprise an operation selected from the group consisting of creating a segment, ordering a segment, and splitting a segment (0043-48e.g. see layers as reading in segments)
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising viewing the 3D object as a set of stacked segment (ABSTRACT, 0043-48 e.g. see stacked layers)
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising viewing the 3D object as a set of stacked tool paths (075-76 e.g. see tool paths for achieving stacked layers)
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising processing a plurality of individual slices or segments of a model of the 3D object using at least the plurality of printing instructions (0085-86e.g. see slicing algorithm)
Claim 11. The method of claim 1, further comprising, manipulating a plurality of individual slices or segments of a model of the 3D object via a selection hierarchy, wherein the selection hierarchy comprises the plurality of individual slices or segments of the model of the 3D object (0083-86 e.g. see slicing algorithm as reading on selection hierarchy)
Claim 12. The method of claim 1, further comprising manipulating at least one of a plurality of portions of a tool path of the 3D printer using at least the plurality of printing instructions (ABSTRACT, 0083-95)
Claim 13. A system for modifying a final state of a three-dimensional (3D) object to be printed on a 3D printer, comprising:
computer memory configured to maintain a plurality of printing instructions usable by the 3D printer for printing a 3D object, the plurality of printing instructions comprising one or more first printing instructions, a second printing instruction, and a first final printing instruction (i) corresponding to a first final state of the 3D object and (ii) linked at least to one or more first states corresponding to the one or more first printing instructions and the second printing instruction; supra claim 1
one or more computer processors operatively coupled to the computer memory, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to update the plurality of printing instructions by generating one or more updated printing instructions comprising a second final printing instruction (i) corresponding to a second final state of the 3D object, distinct from the first final state of the 3D object, and (ii) linked at least to the one or more first states, supra claim 1
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and applied prior art set forth in claim 1.
Claim 14. The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to receive a user instruction via a user interface, supra claim 2
Claim 15. The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to provide the plurality of printing instructions in a command history, supra claim 3
Claim 16. The system of claim 15, wherein the command history comprises a command selected from the group consisting of: a traceable set targeted for the command, and a value of a trace after a switch wherein the value of the trace after the switch is configured to determine whether at least a portion of the traceable set is re-traced for printing upon execution of the command, supra claim 4
Claim 18. The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to direct the updated plurality of printing instructions to the 3D printer to print the 3D object, supra claim 6
Claim 19. The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to present the 3D object as a set of stacked segments or a set of stacked toolpaths, supra claim 7
Claim 20. The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to select and process a plurality of individual slices or segments of a model of the 3D object using at least the updated plurality of printing instructions, supra claim 1
Claim 21. The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to select and process a plurality of individual slices or segments of a model of the 3D object via a selection hierarchy, wherein the selection hierarchy comprises the plurality of individual slices or segments of the model of the 3D object, supra claim 11
Claim 22. The system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to select and manipulate a plurality of individual portions of a tool path of the 3D printer using the updated plurality of printing instructions, 0234-0276 e.g. see applying optimal tool paths based on state/action pairs, supra claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noone in view over Brownell (USPN 10048661)
Claim 5. The method of claim 2 but does not expressly teach the seek command described below. Brownwell teaches the seek command described below
further comprising receiving a seek command from the user instruction (ABSTRACT, Col 2 lines 60-67, Col 13 lines 16-25)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Brownwell for applying seek commands for obtaining process control data, to the teachings of Noone, namely controlling a 3D build based in part on state/action data via learning algorithms, would achieve an expected and predictable result of querying 3D build states and associated parameters via a user seek command. Noone contemplates involving operating input for build optimization while Brownwell is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to addressing 3D build states, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim 17. The system of claim 14, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively configured to receive a seek command from the user instruction, supra claim 5
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20200166909 Background/Summary: describes real time adaptive control, claim 1 relevancy (e.g. “disclosed herein are methods for real-time adaptive control of a free form deposition process or a joining process, the methods comprising: a) providing an input design geometry for an object; b) providing a training data set, wherein the training data set comprises process simulation data, process characterization data, in-process inspection data, post-build inspection data, or any combination thereof, for a plurality of design geometries or portions thereof that are the same as or different from the input design geometry of step (a); c) providing a predicted optimal set or sequence of one or more process control parameters for fabricating the object, wherein the predicted optimal set of one or more process control parameters are derived using a machine learning algorithm that has been trained using the training data set of step (b); and d) performing the free form deposition process or the joining process to fabricate the object, wherein real-time process characterization data is provided as input to the machine learning algorithm to adjust one or more process control parameters in real-time.”
20220374565 describes command histories for updating printing sets, claim 3 relevancy
20200247063 describes AI command histories for updating 3D build, claim 1 relevancy
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights