DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0300017 (Wighton) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0072447 (Hull).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a manufacturing method of a three-dimensional molded object that, by stacking layers on a molding surface, molds a molded object and a support structure that supports the molded object, the manufacturing method of the three-dimensional molded object comprising: (Wighton: “The present invention relates generally to systems and methods for providing and evaluating support structures, including support structures that are suitable for use in additive fabrication.” Paragraph 0002)
a first step of determining a support region in which the support structure is molded; (Wighton: see the determine whether support structures are needed as illustrated in figure 10B; “identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided” paragraph 0007)
Wighton does not explicitly describe dividing regions as described below. However, Hull teaches the dividing regions as described below.
a second step of receiving division information for dividing the support region determined in the first step into a plurality of regions; (Hull: see the regions R depicted as islands I1, I2, I3, I4, I5 as illustrated in figure 18 and as described in paragraphs 0124-0137; “ Once the above steps are carried out to identify all of the regions R associated with part 50” paragraph 0122) (Wighton: see the generate proposed support structures as illustrated in figure 10B; “identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided” paragraph 0007; see the identify regions needing support 554 as illustrated in figure 54 and as described in paragraph 0064)
a third step of receiving modification information that instructs a modification of a molding condition or a deletion of a divided region for at least one of the plurality of divided regions that are divided in accordance with the division information received in the second step; (Wighton: see the edit support structures and/or orientation as illustrated in figure 10B; “As one example, a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated. Alternatively, the user may remove support structure where the object has more than sufficient levels of support.” Paragraph 0096)
a fourth step of generating support data for molding the support structure by a three-dimensional molding device in accordance with the support region determined in the first step and the modification information received in the third step; and (Wighton: see the calculate and display supportedness of part as illustrated in figure 10B; see the identify support points within at least one region 504 and generate support structure 506 as illustrated in figure 5A)
a fifth step of molding the support structure by controlling the three-dimensional molding device in accordance with the support data. (Wighton: see the begin fabrication as illustrated in figure 10B)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wighton, namely, generating support structures for additive manufacturing, with the known techniques of Hull, namely, region based support generation for solid freeform fabrication, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Wighton to generate supports using various mechanisms for 3D printing with the teachings of Hull to generated supports using various mechanisms for 3D printing would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved support generation for 3D printing system. In other words, the combination of references provides for 3D printing an object with a support structure that is generated by dividing the supports into regions based on the teachings of 3D printing an object with a support structure in regions in Wighton and the teachings of 3D printing an object with a support structure divided into regions in Hull.
Claim 2:
Wighton does not explicitly describe dividing regions as described below. However, Hull teaches the dividing regions as described below.
The cited prior art describes the manufacturing method of the three-dimensional molded object according to claim 1, wherein the division information includes information for dividing, as one divided region, a region in the support region that is continuous in at least one of a layer stacking direction and directions along the molding surface. (Hull: see the regions R depicted as islands I1, I2, I3, I4, I5 as illustrated in figure 18 and as described in paragraphs 0124-0137; “ Once the above steps are carried out to identify all of the regions R associated with part 50” paragraph 0122) (Wighton: see the generate proposed support structures as illustrated in figure 10B; “identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided” paragraph 0007; see the identify regions needing support 554 as illustrated in figure 54 and as described in paragraph 0064)
Wighton and Hull are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3:
Wighton does not explicitly describe dividing regions as described below. However, Hull teaches the dividing regions as described below.
The cited prior art describes the manufacturing method of the three-dimensional molded object according to claim 2, wherein the division information includes information for dividing, as one divided region, a region in the support region where a length in the layer stacking direction is constant or a displacement of the length is within a predetermined range. (Hull: see the cross sections CS for each region R depicted as islands I1, I2, I3, I4, I5 as illustrated in figure 18 and as described in paragraphs 0124-0137; “ Once the above steps are carried out to identify all of the regions R associated with part 50” paragraph 0122; “If the total number NP of pixels P for support 30 is greater that 256 (i.e. 16.times.16), then the size of this support is (NP).sup.1/2.times.(NP).sup.1/2, or in the present example, 16.times.16 pixels. If NP is less that 256, then calculate the square-root of the total pixels P required. In this case, 20 pixels P are required, so that (NP).sup.1/2=4.47. Then for the X-dimension, round the number to the closest higher integer and for the Y-dimension round the number to the closest lower integer. (In this case X-dimension is 5 pixels and the Y-dimension will be 4 pixels. This ensures that the size of the support will always be greater than the absolute minimum required.” Paragraph 0138) (Wighton: see the generate proposed support structures as illustrated in figure 10B; “identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided” paragraph 0007; see the identify regions needing support 554 as illustrated in figure 54 and as described in paragraph 0064)
Wighton and Hull are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4:
Wighton does not explicitly describe dividing regions as described below. However, Hull teaches the dividing regions as described below.
The cited prior art describes the the manufacturing method of the three-dimensional molded object according to claim 2, wherein the division information includes information for dividing, as one divided region, a region in the support region where a length in the layer stacking direction is constant or a displacement of the length is within a predetermined range and where a displacement of an upper surface or a lower surface in a direction along the molding surface is continuous within a predetermined range. (Hull: see the surfaces of the islands and the cross sections CS for each region R depicted as islands I1, I2, I3, I4, I5 as illustrated in figure 18 and as described in paragraphs 0124-0137; “ Once the above steps are carried out to identify all of the regions R associated with part 50” paragraph 0122; “If the total number NP of pixels P for support 30 is greater that 256 (i.e. 16.times.16), then the size of this support is (NP).sup.1/2.times.(NP).sup.1/2, or in the present example, 16.times.16 pixels. If NP is less that 256, then calculate the square-root of the total pixels P required. In this case, 20 pixels P are required, so that (NP).sup.1/2=4.47. Then for the X-dimension, round the number to the closest higher integer and for the Y-dimension round the number to the closest lower integer. (In this case X-dimension is 5 pixels and the Y-dimension will be 4 pixels. This ensures that the size of the support will always be greater than the absolute minimum required.” Paragraph 0138) (Wighton: see the generate proposed support structures as illustrated in figure 10B; “identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided” paragraph 0007; see the identify regions needing support 554 as illustrated in figure 54 and as described in paragraph 0064)
Wighton and Hull are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7:
Wighton does not explicitly describe molding condition as described below. However, Hull teaches the molding condition as described below.
The cited prior art describes the manufacturing method of the three-dimensional molded object according to claim 1, wherein the molding condition includes at least one of a filling rate, a type of a material to be discharged, and molding pattern. (Hull: “FIG. 31A through FIG. 31D are cross-sectional views of various support patterns along the Z-direction for a grid of 32.times.32 pixels;” paragraph 0046; “The selection of patterns (geometry) for anchors AS is based on the properties of the supported areas, such as size, stress concentration, etc. Typical designs of the anchor patterns on 9 by 9 pixels are shown in FIG. 34 and can be instantiated on 32 by 32 pixels. All the given designs indicate the anchor section of the supports. These designs can be mixed and matched to design other types of anchor supports AS.” Paragraph 0170) (Wighton: see the edit support structures and/or orientation as illustrated in figure 10B; “As one example, a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated. Alternatively, the user may remove support structure where the object has more than sufficient levels of support.” Paragraph 0096)
Wighton and Hull are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0300017 (Wighton) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0072447 (Hull) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0151493 (Schmidt).
Claim 5:
Wighton and Hull do not explicitly describe an angle as described below. However, Schmidt teaches the angle as described below.
The cited prior art describes the manufacturing method of the three-dimensional molded object according to claim 2, wherein the division information includes information for dividing, as one divided region, a region in the support region where an inclined angle of an overhang section of the molded object, which is supported by the support structure, with respect to the molding surface is constant or a change in inclined angle is within a predetermined range. (Schmidt: “At step 406, the angle comparator 330, also included in the overhang analysis engine 124, compares each of the dot products 315 to the overhang angle threshold 231. Again, each of the dot products 315 corresponds to a triangle specified in the current 3D mesh 235. If the dot product 315 associated with a particular triangle exceeds the overhang angle threshold 231, then the angle comparator 330 considers the triangle to be overhanging.” Paragraph 0076) (Hull: see the regions R depicted as islands I1, I2, I3, I4, I5 as illustrated in figure 18 and as described in paragraphs 0124-0137; “ Once the above steps are carried out to identify all of the regions R associated with part 50” paragraph 0122) (Wighton: see the generate proposed support structures as illustrated in figure 10B; “identifying one or more regions of the object as one or more regions to which mechanical support is to be provided” paragraph 0007; see the identify regions needing support 554 as illustrated in figure 54 and as described in paragraph 0064)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wighton, namely, generating support structures for additive manufacturing, with the known techniques of Hull, namely, region based support generation for solid freeform fabrication, and the known techniques of Schmidt, namely, generating support material for 3D printing, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Wighton to generate supports using various mechanisms for 3D printing with the teachings of Hull to generate supports using various mechanisms for 3D printing and the teachings of Schmidt to generate supports using various mechanisms for 3D printing would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved support generation for 3D printing system. In other words, the combination of references provides for 3D printing an object with a support structure that is generated by dividing the supports into regions and to use angles to determine supports based on the teachings of 3D printing an object with a support structure in regions in Wighton and the teachings of 3D printing an object with a support structure divided into regions in Hull and the teachings of 3D printing an object with a support structure generated by utilizing angles and other parameters in Schmidt.
Claim 6:
Wighton and Hull do not explicitly describe volume as described below. However, Schmidt teaches the voluyme as described below.
The cited prior art describes the manufacturing method of the three-dimensional molded object according to claim 1, wherein the third step includes a selection step that receives a selection of a divided region to be a target of the modification of the molding condition or a target of deletion, and in the selection step, among the plurality of divided regions that are divided, a divided region with a predetermined volume or less is selected collectively. (Schmidt: see the minimization of volume as described in paragraphs 0144, 0145) (Hull: see the regions R depicted as islands I1, I2, I3, I4, I5 as illustrated in figure 18 and as described in paragraphs 0124-0137; “ Once the above steps are carried out to identify all of the regions R associated with part 50” paragraph 0122) (Wighton: see the edit support structures and/or orientation as illustrated in figure 10B; “As one example, a user may choose to edit a support structure in order to add additional supports where a lack of supportedness is indicated. Alternatively, the user may remove support structure where the object has more than sufficient levels of support.” Paragraph 0096)
Wighton, Hull, and Schmidt are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Claim 8:
Wighton and Hull do not explicitly describe an angle as described below. However, Schmidt teaches the angle as described below.
The cited prior art describes the manufacturing method of the three-dimensional molded object according to claim 1, further comprising:
a display step for displaying the plurality of divided regions on a display section in a distinguishable manner, (Wighton: “In some embodiments, the supportedness of one or more regions of an object is presented to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI). For example, a visual indication of supportedness provided via a user interface, which may include but is not limited to text, pictures, object shading, patterns, popups, colors, and/or combinations thereof may be used to provide information to a user about the supportedness of one or more regions of an object to be fabricated (which may include the whole object).” Paragraph 0040)
wherein in the display step, at least one of the followings is displayed with emphasis,
(a) a region where an inclined angle of an overhang section of the molded object, which is supported by the support structure, with respect to the molding surface is less than a predetermined value, (Schmidt: “ The overhang shading 251-0 and 251-1 communicate the significance of overhangs via the relative "redness" of highlights included in the dynamically updated visualizations 291-0 and 291-1 respectively. Because the overhang angle threshold 231-0 is lower than the overhang angle threshold 231-1, the areas of the dynamically updated visualization 291-0 that exhibit redness are more extensive than the areas of the dynamically updated visualization 291-1 that exhibit redness. FIG. 3A illustrates how the 3D model interactive tool 120 enables designers to quickly and effectively explore the impact of the different overhang angle thresholds 231 on the quality of the 3D model 117.” Paragraph 0066)
(b) a region where an area of a lower surface of the overhang section is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,
(c) a region where a length of the overhang section along the molding surface is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, or
(d) a region where a weight of the molded object supported by the support structure is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.
Wighton, Hull, and Schmidt are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 9,524,357 describes generating and modifying support structures.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0228369 describes an automatic support generation.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0309494 describes a 3D printing apparatus with a support structure generator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights