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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 62-64, drawn to a method of determining regions for an additive manufacturing system comprising a plurality of printer agents.
Group II, claim(s) 47 and 51, drawn to an apparatus for determining regions for an additive manufacturing system comprising a plurality of printer agents.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of no more than the subject matter of claims 1 or 64, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Mees (US 2018/0253080) as indicated below.
During a telephone conversation with Rachel Watt on September 16, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 62-64. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 47 and 51 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites, “determining the regions such that a dimension of each region is equal to and/or greater than a minimum possible separation between each printer agent with a workspace that includes at least a part of said region.” It is unclear what this limitation means. Is it referring to the minimum separation between the printer agent and the workspace? The minimum separation between printer agents as printed on the workspace? What is the claim conveying about regions that have portions that are not in the workspace? Applicant’s disclosure includes this language, and does not add sufficient context to decode these questions.
Claim 6 recites, “each printer agent is assigned to a region, preferably to a single region.” It is unclear if “a single region” is required.
Claim 14 recites, “comprising assigning a number of regions to each printer agent that is: dependent on a dimensionality of a configuration of the printer agents.” “Dependent on a dimensionality of a configuration of the printer agents” is interpreted as the assigned regions being within the reach of each printer agent, but the meaning is unclear and this is a best guess.
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) 1-10, 12, 16-18, and 62-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mees (US 2018/0253080).
Regarding claim 1, Mees discloses a method of determining regions for an additive manufacturing system comprising a plurality of printer agents (areas of operation for first and second robots, [0067], Fig. 3A, 4A), wherein each of the printer agents is associated with a workspace (moving first robot exclusion area 410a and second robot exclusion area 410b, [0069-71], Figs. 4A-4B), and wherein the printer agents are arranged so that at least one pair of adjacent printer agents has intersecting workspaces (410a of Fig. 4A overlaps with 410b of Fig. 4B, [0069-70]), the method comprising: identifying a layer of a part (Fig. 3A, step 306); determining a plurality of separate regions associated with the layer (determine portions for each layer of 3D model, step 308, [0051], Fig. 3A), wherein each region is assigned to one of the printer agents (produced by one robot or the other, [0051]); and outputting the plurality of regions (assigned to the additive manufacturing robots, step 312, [0049], Fig. 3A); wherein a dimension of each region is equal to and/or greater than a minimum possible separation between the printer agents adjacent said region ([0069-71], Figs. 4A-C).
Regarding claim 2, Mees discloses determining the regions such that a dimension of each region is equal to and/or greater than a minimum possible separation between each printer agent with a workspace that includes at least a part of said region (assignable portions include seams thereby the portions have a dimension that is equal to and/or greater than a minimum possible separation between the printer agents with the workspace including a part of said portions, [0058]; for the purpose of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as requiring that the dimensions of each region are equal to and/or greater than the minimum separation between the printer agents as printed on the workspace, and that the workspace includes at least a part of the regions).
Regarding claim 3, Mees discloses wherein the minimum possible separation between printer agents is dependent on one or more of: a property of the printer agents; a dimension of the printer agents; and a user input (a minimum possible separation is an inherent property of the printer agents, as to the extent they can print separably, there is a property or dimension of separation).
Regarding claim 4, Mees discloses wherein outputting the regions comprises one or more of: transmitting the regions to the additive manufacturing system; printing the regions; and determining toolpaths for each of the printer agents in dependence on the regions and outputting the toolpaths (order for fabrication, [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C).
Regarding claim 5, Mees discloses one or more of: assigning each of the regions to a single printer agent; assigning a plurality of regions to one or more of the printer agents; assigning a plurality of regions to each of the printer agents; and assigning the same number of regions to each of the printer agents (two robots assigned from four potential job zones, in various permutations, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C).
Regarding claim 6, Mees discloses wherein each of the regions is associated with a printing step, wherein the associated printer agent is arranged to print the material in said region during said printing step, wherein, for each printing step, each printer agent is assigned to a region, preferably to a single region (two robots assigned to print in four potential job zones, in various permutations, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C).
Regarding claim 7, Mees discloses determining an order of the printing steps and outputting the order (instructions to print, transition the robots between zones, and print more, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C).
Regarding claim 8, Mees discloses wherein the regions and the printing steps are determined so that, for each printing step, each of the regions printed during said printing step is separated by at least one other region (two robots assigned to print in four potential job zones, in various permutations, including printing by one robot in zone A, another in zone C, thus zone B separates them, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C).
Regarding claim 9, Mees discloses determining the regions in dependence on one or more of: an area of material within each of said regions; a contribution of the printer agents; a movement of the printer agents; a material usage of the printer agents; and a printing time of the printer agents ([0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Mees discloses determining the regions: so as to minimise the total printing time and/or so as to minimise the printing time for one of the printing steps; and/or so as to minimise the maximum printing time of a printer agent and/or so as to minimise the maximum printing time of a printer agent for each of the printing steps; and/or so as to minimise a movement of the printer agents and/or so as to minimise a material usage of the printer agents ([0056]).
Regarding claim 12, Mees discloses wherein determining the regions comprises determining the regions such that each region is located entirely within the workspace of one of the printer agents (two robots assigned to print in four potential job zones, in various permutations, job zones assigned such that they are within the workspace of the assigned robot, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C).
Regarding claim 16, Mees discloses determining a configuration of printer agents and/or an optimal configuration of printer agents ([0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Mees discloses determining the regions in dependence on an overlap parameter (seam is the overlap, [0056]), wherein the overlap parameter is dependent on one or more of: a user input; a type of material being used by the printer agents; and a geometry of the part and/or of a layer of the part ([0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Mees discloses identifying a first region of a first layer of the part ([0051-52]; [0069-71]), the first region being associated with a first printer agent ([0051] [0069]); and determining a second region for a second layer of the part in dependence on the second region of the second layer overlapping the first region of the first layer, ([0053], [0069-71]), the second region being associated with a second printer agent ([0053] [0070]).
Regarding claim 62, Mees discloses determining a configuration of printer agents from a set of possible configurations (alternative approaches to the configuration that can be chosen from, [0069-78]).
Regarding claim 63, Mees discloses wherein the printer agents are reconfigurable so as to change the workspaces associated with the printer agents (changed between layers, see [0069-76], such as to have a different seam pattern in successive layers, [0053]; therefore reconfigurable).
Regarding claim 64, Mees discloses identifying a plurality of layers of a part ([0050]); and for each layer of the plurality of layers: determining a configuration of the printer agents based on the geometry of the layer (divide a layer into portions and assign a robot to deposit each portion, [0051]), the configuration being determined such that at least one pair of adjacent printer agents has intersecting workspaces (seam formed, [0051-52]); and determining a plurality of separate regions associated with the layer ([0051]), wherein: each region is assigned to a single one of the printer agents ([0051]; see also a layer in [0069] as compared to [0070-71]); each region is associated with a single printing step ([0051] [0069]), wherein the printer agent to which each region is assigned is arranged to print the material in that region during the associated printing step ([0051] [0069]); and the regions and the printing steps are determined so that, for each printing step, each of the regions assigned to be printed during said printing step are separated by at least one other region (two robots assigned to print in four potential job zones, in various permutations, including printing by one robot in zone A, another in zone C, thus zone B separates them, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C); and outputting the plurality of regions (assigned to the additive manufacturing robots, step 312, [0049], Fig. 3A).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mees (US 2018/0253080).
Regarding claim 14, Mees teaches assigning a number of regions to each printer agent that is: dependent on a dimensionality of a configuration of the printer agents
and/or that is equal to and/or greater than to the number of printer agents multiplied by two to the power of the number of dimensions of the arrangement of the agents;
and/or equal to and/or greater than the number of printer agents multiplied by two;
and/ equal to and/or greater than the number of printer agents multiplied by four (one or more zones associated with each robot, [0064]; overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mees (US 10,620,611) teaches subject matter similar to Mees (US 2018/0253080), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744