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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 65-66 lack unity of invention with elected Group I because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of no more than originally filed claim 1, 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 noted in the non-final Office Action mailed on September 25, 2026.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 65-66 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Applicant does not argue that Mees does not anticipate originally filed claim 1, instead presenting amendments and arguing based on those amendments.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 47, 51, and 62-66 are pending. Claims 4-6 and 8 have been canceled. Claims 47, 51, and 65-66 have been withdrawn. The rejections have been revised in view of the amendment.
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 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 “said region.” It is unclear which region this is meant to refer to. It could refer to any of the determined regions.
Claim 14 recites, “comprising assigning a number of regions to each printer agent that is: dependent on a number of dimension of an arrangement of printer agents.” The meaning of “dependent on” is unclear in this context. While the alternatives in claim 14 recite a minimum number of regions based on the number of dimensions, no meaning is offered for “dependent on” in this context. For printing agents that are arranged in two dimensions, for instance, how many regions would each printer agent have to be assigned to for it to have been “dependent on” the number 2?
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) 1-5, 7, 9-10, 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]); each region is associated with a single printing step (two robots assigned to print in four potential job zones, in various permutations, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C; this includes a permutation with each robot assigned to a particular job zone), wherein the printer agent to which each region is assigned is arranged to print the material in that region during the associated printing step (two robots assigned to print in four potential job zones, in various permutations, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C; this includes a permutation with each robot assigned to a particular job zone); 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, [0067] [0069-71], Figs. 4A-C; this includes a permutation such as one robot assigned to Zone A, another to Zone C); 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 pair of printer agents whose respective workspaces each include 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 a region in the total work area, [0058]).
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 7, Mees discloses determining an order of the printing steps and outputting the order (instructions to print, [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 number of dimensions of an arrangement of the printer agents
and/or 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because Meess teaches the ability to move printer agents to different areas of the workspace, the limitations of claim 1 cannot be taught. This argument is not persuasive, because, while Meess teaches methods that are outside the scope of claim 1, Meess nonetheless teaches methods that are inside the scope of claim 1. Meess teaches the ability to have one robot operating on Zone A, and another on Zone C. This permutation, and maintaining it in other layers, are all within the scope of claim 1.
Applicant argues that Meess does not disclose “an input set of possible configurations.” This argument is not persuasive because “an input set of possible configurations” amounts to the total set of possible arrangements. This is tautologically present for any system that results in any configuration. A configuration is necessarily selected from options, particularly given Meess’ teachings regarding options for different Zone selections for the robots.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are derivative and are similarly unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights