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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claims 1-10 remain pending and are ready for examination.
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, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Huang et al. (US20210114290A1 -hereinafter Huang).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang teaches a method of producing a component by means of an additive production method (see Abstract; Huang: “a three-dimensional (3D) fabrication system may include a controller to identify a feature of an object to be fabricated.”), including at least the following steps:
a production plan for the component is generated from digital data; (see [0001]; Huang: “In three-dimensional (3D) printing, an additive printing process is often used to make three-dimensional solid parts from a digital model.” See [0039]: “The controller 302 may fetch, decode, and execute the instructions 312 to determine that a feature 104 of a 3D object has a size that is smaller than a predefined size.”)
the component is analyzed regarding its structure and/or its production parameters in respect of the temperature in the component during production; and (see [0040]; Huang: “The controller 302 may fetch, decode, and execute the instructions 314 to, based on the determination that the feature 104 has a size that is smaller than the predefined size, devise a thermal support 106 for the feature 104. The controller 302 may devise (or equivalently, determine) the thermal support 106 for the feature 104 through determination of a size and a location within a build envelope of the thermal support 106 for the feature 104.”)
a supplementary structure is added to the component at those places where the analysis reveals that the structure and/or the production parameters would result in an inhomogeneous temperature distribution during production. (see [0041]; Huang: “The controller 302 may fetch, decode, and execute the instructions 316 to control fabrication components 120 to form the devised thermal support 106 for the feature 104 from a first set of particles 102, an intermediate section 108 from a second set of particles 102, and the feature 104 from a third set of particles 102”. See [0025]: “the controller 110 may form a thermal support 106 to increase a local temperature around the thermal support 106 to, for instance, make the temperature distribution on a particle bed more uniform.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Huang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Huang further teaches wherein the supplementary structure is generated by the addition of at least one separate geometrical body. (see [0023]; Huang: “In some examples, the thermal support 106 may have a similar cross-sectional shape and size to the feature 104, in which case the thermal support 106 may be conformal to the feature 104. In other examples, the thermal support 106 may be a non-conformal support, in which the thermal support 106 may have a larger cross-sectional shape than the feature 104.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Huang teaches a component produced by means of an additive production method including by means of a production method according to claim 1 ((see Abstract; Huang: “a three-dimensional (3D) fabrication system may include a controller to identify a feature of an object to be fabricated.”), wherein the component comprises at least one supplementary structure. (see [0040]; Huang: “The controller 302 may fetch, decode, and execute the instructions 314 to, based on the determination that the feature 104 has a size that is smaller than the predefined size, devise a thermal support 106 for the feature 104.”)
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Nixon et al. (US20220063204A1 -hereinafter Nixon).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Huang does not teach wherein the additive production method is a Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) method or a Fused Layer Modeling (FLM) method or a Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) method.
Nixon from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the additive production method is a Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) method or a Fused Layer Modeling (FLM) method or a Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) method. (see [0047]; Nixon: “Suitable extrusion-based additive manufacturing systems for system 10 include fused deposition modeling systems developed by Stratasys, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minn. under the trademark “FDM”.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Huang to include Nixon’s features of the additive production method is a Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) method or a Fused Layer Modeling (FLM) method or a Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) method. Doing so would print more accurate parts with minimal or no thermal degradation. (Nixon, [0077])
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Huang and Nixon teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, Huang further teaches wherein the supplementary structure is generated by a modification of the original component geometry. (see [0004]; Huang: “FIG. 1B shows a cross-sectional side view of a build envelope 130 in which an example 3D object and an example thermal support may be formed.” See [0019]: “In any of these examples, the controller 110 may determine when a feature 104 of a 3D object, which may encompass the entire 3D object, has a size that is smaller than the certain size. Based on a determination that the feature 104 has a size that is smaller than the certain size, the controller 110 may determine or devise a thermal support 106 for the feature 104.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Huang teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above; however, Huang does not teach wherein the material of the component is or comprises a semi-crystalline polymer.
Nixon from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the material of the component is or comprises a semi-crystalline polymer. (see [0060]; Nixon: “The physical properties of the thermoplastic materials used to print parts and associated support structures can greatly vary. For instance, the thermoplastic materials can be amorphous or semi-crystalline and can be loaded with materials, such as nanoparticles which increase the absorption of heat into the thermoplastic materials relative to unloaded thermoplastic materials.”)
The same motivation to combine Huang and Nixon a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 7.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reidy et al. (US20210260654A1 -hereinafter Reidy).
Regarding Claim 5, Huang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; ; however, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the supplementary structure is formed by a material which differs from that of the component.
Reidy from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the supplementary structure is formed by a material which differs from that of the component. (see [0151]; Reidy: “The support structure 820 is fabricated to support the overhanging central region of the part 810, and is coupled to the part via an interface covering 842, which may be formed from a different material than the part.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Huang to include Reidy’s features of the supplementary structure is formed by a material which differs from that of the component. Doing so would improve the mechanical strength of the packaged build material and render the packaged build material less susceptible to mechanical damage, fracture, and/or breakage. (Reidy, [0138])
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Gold et al. (US20180111334A1 -hereinafter Gold).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein a predetermined breaking point is generated between the component and the supplementary structure.
Gold from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein a predetermined breaking point is generated between the component and the supplementary structure. (see [0025]; Gold: “As illustrated, the thermal dissipation support 210 at least partially surrounds the object 200. In an aspect, the thermal dissipation support 210 includes one or more breaks or separation points such that the thermal dissipation support 210 may be easily removed from the object 200.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Huang to include Gold’s features of a predetermined breaking point is generated between the component and the supplementary structure. Doing so would improve the transfer of heat away from the object through the front and rear of the object. (Gold, [0034])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Fernandez Aymerich et al. (US20230173583A1 -hereinafter Aymerich).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Huang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the supplementary structure is used as a reinforcement and/or stabilization structure for the cooling process of the component.
Aymerich from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the supplementary structure is used as a reinforcement and/or stabilization structure for the cooling process of the component. (see [0032]; Aymerich: “Additionally, in some examples, the anchor structure 320 may further comprise a reinforcement portion (not shown) between the body 310 and a pin 327. The reinforcement structure may aid the pin 327 not to deform during cooling and, therefore, provide resistance to breakage during cooling caused by the internal tensions of the portion 315 of the 3D object 310.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Huang to include Aymerich’s features of the supplementary structure is used as a reinforcement and/or stabilization structure for the cooling process of the component. Doing so would reduce warping of that object portion. (Aymerich, [0025])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Auld et al. (US20210339477A1 -hereinafter Auld).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, Huang does not explicitly teach wherein at least the addition of the supplementary structure is done semi-automatically or automatically.
Auld from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein at least the addition of the supplementary structure is done semi-automatically or automatically. (see [0055]; Auld: “In act 702, the size and shape of one or more thermal support regions are generated based on a 3D model of an object. Act 702 may comprise one or more automated manipulations of the 3D model of the object to produce a 3D model of the thermal support region(s).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Huang to include Auld’s features of at least the addition of the supplementary structure is done semi-automatically or automatically. Doing so would reduce heat lost by nearby consolidated material and protect the part from defects. (Auld, [0025])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martin (US9144940B2) discloses printing a three-dimensional part and a support structure with an electrophotography-based additive manufacturing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights