DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 02/12/2024.
Claim(s) 1-16 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 9-16 are pending.
- Claim(s) 1-8 has/have been canceled (prior to examination for this office action).
- Claim(s) 9-16 has/have been newly added (prior to examination for this office action).
- Claim(s) 9-16 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 02/12/2024 has/have been considered by examiner.
A reference mentioned in the IDS has been utilized by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that this application claims priority of or makes reference to being a 371 of PCT/DE2022/000088 filed 08/03/2022.
Acknowledgment is also made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) from application no DE 102021004139.9 filed 08/12/2021. The certified copy has been filed in instant application no 18/683,118 on 02/12/2024.
Specification
The disclosure filed 02/12/2024 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/12/2024 are acknowledged and accepted by examiner for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are objected to due to having minor informalities:
Claim 10-16 in each of their preamble recite: “The method according to claim 1, …”, which is considered as a typographical error, so examiner will read these as, “The method according to claim 9, …”.
Correction is required (otherwise this phrase may incur further lack of antecedent basis issues for various terms and phrases in these dependent claims).
Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” and thus being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are in Claim(s) 9 – a means for discharging; a means for smoothing; a means for compacting.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Note, for the term “means” in claim 9, description has been provided in applicant specification, page 1, 3rd para - Such assemblies can be working equipment of a 3D printer, such as a means for discharging or applying the particulate building material, a means for smoothing the discharged particulate building material, a means for compacting the particulate building material or a print head for applying a binder. Accordingly, Examiner will interpret the claim terms to be assemblies that are working equipment of a 3D printer under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of these descriptions/examples.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites a method (process), which is a statutory category of invention.
However, claim 9 recites, “… establishing control data for operating the 3D printer based on the received input data; … determining a first difference between the specified predetermined dimensions of the input data and the measured dimensions of the first 3D structure; and if the first difference exceeds a predetermined tolerance threshold, changing at least one parameter of the control data such that for a subsequent 3D structure generated by the 3D printer using the changed control data, a second difference between the specified predetermined dimensions of the input data and the measured dimensions of the subsequent 3D structure is less than the first difference, wherein the changed parameter of the control data is at least one of: a time of control of a nozzle in a print head of a 3D printer; or a movement speed of at least one component of the 3D printer, …”. This/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step(s) of establishing, determining, and changing [data] as described in applicant specification, page 18 along with Fig. 3a and 3b, etc. appear to be an observation/evaluation and judgement that can be performed in the human mind (and/or written with a pen on a paper) based on some available/monitored data. These/This limitation(s) therefore recite(s) concept(s) performed in the human mind. Also note, all of these steps, can be written down with a pen on a paper. Note, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer devices to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Besides the abstract ideas, claim recites additional element(s) such as, for the “measuring, in three-dimensions, a first 3D structure generated by the 3D printer based on the control data;” limitation, measuring is/are described at a high level of generality and does not provide any details regarding how the measurement takes place and does not specify what component of the system performs the measurement. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Accordingly, this limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Also, next, the limitations regarding “receiving input data specifying predetermined dimensions for a 3D structure to be produced;” amount to using a network to gather data. These limitations do not require any particular machine to acquire/transmit the data or any particular transformation of the data. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity which are incidental to the primary process of establishing, determining and changing and do not meaningfully limit the claim.
Next, for the “wherein the at least one component of the 3D printer is at least one of: a means for discharging the particulate building material; a means for smoothing the discharged particulate building material; or a means for compacting the particulate building material.” limitation, these component/means is/are described at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the same reasons as stated above. For example, for the “measuring, in three-dimensions, a first 3D structure generated by the 3D printer based on the control data;” limitation, measuring is/are described at a high level of generality and does not provide any details regarding how the measurement takes place and does not specify what component of the system performs the measurement. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Accordingly, this limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, the limitations regarding “receiving input data specifying predetermined dimensions for a 3D structure to be produced;” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found obtaining data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Next, for the “wherein the at least one component of the 3D printer is at least one of: a means for discharging the particulate building material; a means for smoothing the discharged particulate building material; or a means for compacting the particulate building material.” limitation, these component/means is/are described at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and so includes the abstract idea from claim 9. Additionally claim 10 merely describe the input data type and nothing more.
Claim 11 depends on claim 9 and so includes the abstract idea from claim 9. Additionally claim 11’s additional limitation is/are described at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 12 depends on claim 9 and so includes the abstract idea from claim 9. Additionally claim 12 merely describe the data type of the measured dimensions and nothing more.
Claim(s) 13-16 depend(s) from claim 9, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 9. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the abstract idea (mental steps as in claim 9) where this/these limitation(s) just describe(s) the data type and conditions further, as in writing instructions on paper with a pen) and no significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claim(s) 9-16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 9-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mosher (WO 2021080570 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Mosher teaches:
A method for controlling a 3D printer, the method comprising: (See Fig. 1-2, Fig. 4. FIG. 2 depicts an example three-dimensional (3D) fabrication system that may include a controller of the example system depicted in FIG. 1. FIG. 4 shows an example method for applying a determined adjustment on the operation of a recoater. See also claims 10-12.)
receiving input data specifying predetermined dimensions for a 3D structure to be produced; (See 0023-25 that teach the predefined sizes may correspond to sizes of structures in the build material layer 204 that the controller 110 is to identify. … The controller 110 may determine 114 whether the identified structure of the surface includes a portion that has a property that is outside of a predefined property level. … The property may be, for instance, a height, a depth, a density, a uniformity of a density, and/or the like, and the predefined property level may be a certain difference in height, a certain difference in depth, a lack of uniformity of density, and/or the like, of the portion 220 from the height, depth, density, and/or the like, of neighboring portions.)
establishing control data for operating the 3D printer based on the received input data; (Besides above from 0023-25, see 0020 – the controller 110 may adjust an operation of the recoater 102 to cause the build material layer 204 and/or another build material layer to have consistent properties, e.g., heights, densities, and/or the like, across the build material layer 204 and/or another build material layer. 0026-27 also teach controller’s ability to control and adjust to achieve an intended structure.)
measuring, in three-dimensions, a first 3D structure generated by the 3D printer based on the control data; (0022 - the controller 110 may access a stereoscopic image of the build material layer 204 surface and may identify the structure of the build material layer 204 surface from the accessed stereoscopic image. Besides 0023-25, see 0051 – The controller … may control a stereoscopic imaging system 230 to capture stereoscopic images of the build material layer 204 formed through operation of the recoater 102. In addition, the controller 110 may identify the characteristics of the surface of the build material layer 204 from the captured stereoscopic images.)
determining a first difference between the specified predetermined dimensions of the input data and the measured dimensions of the first 3D structure; (Besides 0023-25, see 0052 - At block 404, the controller 110 may determine whether the identified characteristics identify a portion 220 of the surface that has a property that is outside of a predefined property level. As discussed herein, the portion 220 of the surface may have a property, e.g., a height, density, or the like, that exceeds or falls below the predefined property level. For instance, the portion 220 may have a height that exceeds some level of deviation from the heights of neighboring portions.)
and if the first difference exceeds a predetermined tolerance threshold, changing at least one parameter of the control data such that for a subsequent 3D structure generated by the 3D printer using the changed control data, a second difference between the specified predetermined dimensions of the input data and the measured dimensions of the subsequent 3D structure is less than the first difference, (0023-24 - a portion 220 that has a property that is outside of the predefined property level based on the portion 220 having a height that exceeds the height of a neighboring portion by a predefined difference level and/or percentage. 0026-27, 0030 and claim 1 teach - … based on a determination that the portion has a property that is outside of the predefined property level, determine an adjustment to be applied to an operation of the recoater to achieve an intended structure of the layer and/or an intended structure of a subsequent layer; and apply the determined adjustment on the operation of the recoater.)
wherein the changed parameter of the control data is at least one of: a time of control of a nozzle in a print head of a 3D printer; or a movement speed of at least one component of the 3D printer, wherein the at least one component of the 3D printer is at least one of: a means for discharging the particulate building material; a means for smoothing the discharged particulate building material; or a means for compacting the particulate building material. (0042 - The controller 110 may also, in some examples, control the timings at which the agent delivery device may deposit the agent onto the build material layer 204 to form portions of a 3D object in the build material layer 204. See 0035-36 for further details about the agent delivery device, such as, 0036 teaches, “… the agent delivery device may be a printhead having a plurality of nozzles … to eject droplets of an agent through the nozzles. In any regard, the agent delivery device may be controlled to selectively deposit the agent onto locations of the build material layer 204 at which build material 202 is to be binded together to form a portion of a 3D object.”)
Regarding claim 10, Mosher teaches all the elements of claim 9.
Mosher further teaches:
wherein the input data includes predetermined dimensions for one or more individual layers of a 3D structure to be produced. (As above, 0024 teaches the surface of the build material layer 204 includes any portions 220 that have a property that is outside of a predefined property level. The property may be, for instance, a height, a depth, a density, a uniformity of a density, and/or the like, and the predefined property level may be a certain difference in height, a certain difference in depth, a lack of uniformity of density, and/or the like, of the portion 220 from the height, depth, density, and/or the like, of neighboring portions.)
Regarding claim 11, Mosher teaches all the elements of claim 9.
Mosher further teaches:
wherein the control data controls operation of the at least one component of the 3D printer. (As above, 0042 teaches the controller 110 may also, in some examples, control the timings at which the agent delivery device may deposit the agent onto the build material layer 204 to form portions of a 3D object in the build material layer 204.)
Regarding claim 12, Mosher teaches all the elements of claim 9.
Mosher further teaches:
wherein the measured dimensions of the first 3D structure are determined at a plurality of points on a surface of the first 3D structure. (Besides above, 0023 teaches the stereoscopic imaging system 230 may include a plurality of cameras that may be positioned to capture images of the surface of the build material layer 204 from multiple angles with respect to each other. Particularly, the cameras may be positioned with respect to each other such that the captured images may be stitched or otherwise combined with each other to generate the stereoscopic image of the build material layer 204. In addition, the combined image may show perceived depths, e.g., a 3D structure, of the build material layer 204.)
Regarding claim 13, Mosher teaches all the elements of claim 9.
Mosher further teaches:
wherein the first difference and the second difference are determined in three-dimensions. (Besides above, 0025 teaches the controller 110 may determine that the identified structure may include a plurality of portions 220 having properties that are outside of the predefined property level. As above, note, 0024 teaches, “The property may be, for instance, a height, a depth, a density, a uniformity of a density, and/or the like, and the predefined property level may be a certain difference in height, a certain difference in depth, a lack of uniformity of density, and/or the like, of the portion 220 from the height, depth, density, and/or the like, of neighboring portions.”)
Regarding claim 16, Mosher teaches all the elements of claim 9.
Mosher further teaches:
wherein the first difference and the second difference are each determined point by point. (Besides above, 0023 teaches the stereoscopic imaging system 230 may include a plurality of cameras that may be positioned to capture images of the surface of the build material layer 204 from multiple angles with respect to each other. Particularly, the cameras may be positioned with respect to each other such that the captured images may be stitched or otherwise combined with each other to generate the stereoscopic image of the build material layer 204. In addition, the combined image may show perceived depths, e.g., a 3D structure, of the build material layer 204. More specifically, see 0051 also teaches, “At block 402, the controller 110 may identify, from an image of a surface of a build material layer 204, characteristics of the surface of the build material layer 204. The characteristics may include, for instance, the contour or other physical feature of the surface of the build material layer 204.”)
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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosher (WO 2021080570 A1) in view of Sawyer (US 20220197251 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Mosher teaches all the elements of claim 9.
While Mosher further teaches the concept of the following limitation implicitly, as Mosher teaches “wherein the predetermined tolerance threshold is a first threshold when the first difference is positive and is a second threshold when the first difference is negative, …” (as in Mosher, 0052 teaches, “the portion 220 of the surface may have a property, e.g., a height, density, or the like, that exceeds or falls below the predefined property level.” Also see the details of the determination of such differences (i.e., above or below) in 0025 as described above.),
Mosher does not explicitly disclose:
… the first threshold being different from the second threshold.
Sawyer explicitly teaches:
… the first threshold being different from the second threshold. (Fig. 1 and 0043 - A parameter of manufacture may include a manufacturing tolerance range. A “manufacturing tolerance range” as used in this disclosure is a difference between a metric of a specification of an object and an actual metric of a produced object. In a non-limiting example, an object may include a length of 0.5 mm with a manufacturing tolerance range of +/−0.1 mm. In this case, any value between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm of a length of the object is acceptable. Note, the +0.1 mm threshold vs the -0.1 mm threshold.)
Accordingly, as Mosher and Sawyer are directed to control technology of 3D printing processes based on digital model/data, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of having manufacturing tolerance range including specific condition-based thresholds/limits for dimension(s) of the 3D object to be printed, as taught by Sawyer to the 3D printing processes and control system with ability to identify differences specified (by design) vs actual/measured dimensions of the printed object in an ongoing step of the printing process to make necessary adjustments as taught by Mosher. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled meeting customer such as a third-party entity’s manufacturing requirements, as evident in Sawyer, Fig. 1, 0037, 0043, etc.
Regarding claim 15, Mosher teaches all the elements of claim 9.
However, Mosher does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the predetermined tolerance threshold is between +0.5 mm and -0.5 mm.
Sawyer explicitly teaches:
… wherein the predetermined tolerance threshold is between +0.5 mm and -0.5 mm. (Fig. 1 and 0043 - A parameter of manufacture may include a manufacturing tolerance range. A “manufacturing tolerance range” as used in this disclosure is a difference between a metric of a specification of an object and an actual metric of a produced object. In a non-limiting example, an object may include a length of 0.5 mm with a manufacturing tolerance range of +/−0.1 mm. In this case, any value between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm of a length of the object is acceptable. Note, the +/−0.1 mm tolerance range is a threshold that is between +0.5 mm and -0.5 mm. See MPEP 2131.03 - "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).)
Accordingly, as Mosher and Sawyer are directed to control technology of 3D printing processes based on digital model/data, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of having manufacturing tolerance range including specific condition-based thresholds/limits for dimension(s) of the 3D object to be printed, as taught by Sawyer to the 3D printing processes and control system with ability to identify differences specified (by design) vs actual/measured dimensions of the printed object in an ongoing step of the printing process to make necessary adjustments as taught by Mosher. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled meeting customer such as a third-party entity’s manufacturing requirements, as evident in Sawyer, Fig. 1, 0037, 0043, etc.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BULLER et al. (US 20200004225 A1) is related to generation of forming instructions to form one or more three-dimensional (3D) objects. Generation of the forming instructions may include selection of one or more formation variables to form at least a portion of the one or more 3D objects. Generation of the forming instructions may include selection of a speed, feature, and/or an effect manifested in at least a portion of the formed one or more 3D objects. The forming variable(s) may be associated with a patch of a model of the 3D object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F: 12-5pm (approximately). 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 on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights