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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 6/7/2024
Claims 1-15 are pending
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said file" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said processor" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said processor" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “said rate” in line 3 and "the unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "said file" in line 5 and “the processor” in lines 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said rate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "said point" in lines 7-8 and “said individual instance” in lines 8 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said file" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnauts US 9,162,381 B2 (hereinafter Arnauts) in view of Baluch et al. US 4,571,319 (hereinafter Baluch).
Regarding claim 1, Arnauts teaches a fabrication method (Col. 1, lines 9-13, “a method for manufacturing a pre-insulated skeleton framing segment for a building to be constructed, more specifically a skeleton framing segment which is at least partially filled with a foam insulation layer during its production.”) comprising:
providing a digital file storing metadata describing an object having an interior (Col. 12, lines 37-45, “providing a 3D computer model of the skeleton framing segment 1 in the form of CAD data, and storing it in a database 21 (step 201) … the assembly 2 having at least one compartment 5 with a hollow space 14 (step 202)”; Col. 2, lines 17-20, “all the required data, such as dimensions of the assembly and the number, size and location of the spaces to be filled, can be read or retrieved, and optionally also the spaces which are not to be filled”); and providing a hardware processor which is configured to access foam specification data describing at least one type of foam (Col. 20, lines 49-54, “digital computer system 20 is provided with a calculation unit and a computer program for determining a quantity of raw materials to be inserted in the at least one compartment 5 for forming a foam insulation layer 8 with the predetermined thickness 15 on the basis of the data on the data carrier 40”; Col. 20, lines 8-11, “desired thickness 15 of the foam insulation layer 8 to be applied taking into account known reaction speed tables and hardening tables of the raw materials used”) and which, accordingly, and according to said file describing the object, controls introduction of said at least one type of foam into the interior (Col. 23, lines 50-58, “press 31 further comprises two nozzles 25, which in FIG. 13 have the form of two injection nozzles 25A, 25B for injecting the raw materials into the openings 11. The positions X1, X2, X4 of the openings 11 of the first assembly 2 (see FIG. 14, assembly bottom left) are determined from the data on the data carrier 40 (directly or indirectly via retrieving the CAD data), and the injection nozzles 25 are positioned in front of or in the openings 11 of the assembly 2.”),
wherein foam characteristics which are stored include each foam's expansion time and/or time required for each type of foam to harden (Col. 20, lines 9-11, “taking into account known reaction speed tables and hardening tables of the raw materials used”),
Arnauts does not explicitly teach wherein the hardware processor receives inputs determining which types of foam are to be inserted, and then accesses, from memory, characteristics of each type of foam and, accordingly, determines a roadmap for inserting these foams including which should be inserted first, how much of each type to insert, and how long to wait between inserting one type of foam and inserting a next type.
However, Baluch teaches wherein the hardware processor receives inputs determining which types of foam are to be inserted (Col. 3, lines 12-13, “one mixture of material is used for the two wings 14 and a second mixture is used for the center 12”), and then accesses, from memory, characteristics of each type of foam (Col. 7, lines 6-16, “From all the input data the computer then calculates the individual shot size, the individual flow rate in grams per second of each constituent, the demand count rate in counts per second and the divisor necessary to achieve the desired count rate … the necessary input data for many different shots are stored in the computer memory and then are appropriately recalled by the computer at the time of charging a particular mold”) and, accordingly, determines a roadmap for inserting these foams (Col. 7, lines 18-28, “computer program for controlling the urethane polymer mixtures for a number of shots in series as shown in FIG. 6 with a dwell time between adjacent shots … the first several steps include inputting the data as shown in Tables 1 and 2 for several different shots as well as the dwell time between shots” – shots in a series is interpreted as a roadmap because the series defines the order of insertions, the amount of each insertion, and the timing/dwell time between successive insertions.) including which should be inserted first (Col. 3, lines 23-26, “two types of material are discharged into the mold from a single nozzle in the sequence 14a, 12a, 14a, so that the polymer mixture 25 changes twice during the charging of the mold 16” – the programmed sequence identifies the first material insertion, the next material insertion, and the following material insertion), how much of each type to insert (Col 7, lines 6-8, “From all the input data the computer then calculates the individual shot size”), and how long to wait between inserting one type of foam and inserting a next type (Col. 7, lines 21-22, “dwell time between adjacent shots” – dwell time is how long to wait between inserting one type of foam and inserting a next type).
Arnauts and Baluch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to foam-based manufacturing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above CAD-based foam-filling method, as taught by Arnauts, and incorporate computer controlled sequential shot techniques, so that the CAD controlled filling system could insert different foam/polymer mixtures in a determined order, with determined amounts and dwell times, to produce different foam properties in different regions of the object while maintaining automated dispensing control, as taught by Baluch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce complexity and equipment duplication while enabling different foam properties in different regions, as suggested by Baluch (Col. 1, lines 29-37).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Arnauts and Baluch teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Arnauts further teaches wherein said digital file comprises a digital precursor of the object, according to which the object is to be manufactured (Col. 3, lines 26-30, “In an embodiment of the method, the assembly is manufactured on the basis of a 3D computer model represented by CAD data which is stored in a database under an identification code of the assembly”),
and wherein geometries of concealed spaces in a given object are derived directly from the object's digital file (Col. 2, lines 17-20, “all the required data, such as dimensions of the assembly and the number, size and location of the spaces to be filled, can be read or retrieved, and optionally also the spaces which are not to be filled”; Col. 2, lines 39-41, “By reading or retrieving the data, the shape and number of the compartments of the assembly to be filled, and their position, are known precisely” – the geometries of the concealed spaces are derived directly from the digital file because the dimensions, number, size, location, shape, and position of the spaces/compartments are read or retrieved from the CAD/3D computer model data describing the assembly.), and wherein the hardware processor infers what orientation changes will result in the concealed spaces being properly filled (Col. 2, lines 28-30, “By making use of the data of the assembly, the production process can be automated to a high degree”; Col. 4, lines 8-12, “process parameters are determined for inserting the determined quantity of raw materials in each compartment to be filled on the basis of the dimensions of that compartment and on the basis of the list in the memory.”; Col. 4 line 64 – Col. 5, line 2, “By positioning the assembly and hence also the compartment with the hollow space in a lying position, the raw material, preferably liquid raw material, can be better dispersed over the bottom of the compartment, and a more uniform density of the insulating foam is achieved than is the case if an assembly were to be filled in an upright position.”; Col. 16, lines 30-35, “This assembly 2 is placed in a lying position, preferably horizontal. The assembly 2 has at least one compartment 5, in most cases a plurality of compartments 5, whereby the first flat panel 3 forms a bottom, and the beams 10 of the frame 4 form upright walls 7. “- Arnauts teaches or at least suggests the processor inferring an orientation in which the closed surface is on the bottom and the open surface is on the top because Arnauts places the half-open assembly in a lying/horizontal position where the first flat panel forms the bottom, the frame beams form upright walls, and raw material is better dispersed over the bottom of the compartment in that orientation.) including selecting, for each partially open space in the concealed spaces, an orientation in which closed surfaces of the partially open space are on the bottom and an open surface of the partially open space is on the top (Col. 4, lines 64-67 – Col. 5, lines 1-2, “By positioning the assembly and hence also the compartment with the hollow space in a lying position, the raw material, preferably liquid raw material, can be better dispersed over the bottom of the compartment, and a more uniform”; Fig. 8A, Col. 16, lines 29-54, “In FIG. 8A the starting point is a half-open assembly 2 with a first flat panel 3 secured to a frame 4. This assembly 2 is placed in a lying position, preferably horizontal. The assembly 2 has at least one compartment 5, in most cases a plurality of compartments 5, whereby the first flat panel 3 forms a bottom, and the beams 10 of the frame 4 form upright walls 7 … The raw materials for the foam insulation layer 8 are preferably inserted through a nozzle 25, which in FIG. 8B takes the shape of a spray nozzle 25 which applies the raw materials to the bottom 6 and to the upright walls 7, as well as in the corners of the compartment 5 to be filled, e.g. by injecting or spraying” – since the assembly is half-open and the bottom/walls are closed by the flat panel and beams, the remaining open side of the compartment is the upward-facing side through which the raw material is introduced by the nozzle.), allowing foam injection via the open surface which is on the top hence faces upward (Col. 16, lines 49-54, “The raw materials for the foam insulation layer 8 are preferably inserted through a nozzle 25, which in FIG. 8B takes the shape of a spray nozzle 25 which applies the raw materials to the bottom 6 and to the upright walls 7, as well as in the corners of the compartment 5 to be filled, e.g. by injecting or spraying”), allowing foam thus injected to harden (Col. 27, lines 41-42, “After the raw materials are inserted the foam insulation layer, e.g. polyurethane foam, will foam and slowly harden.”) and then changing the orientation further (Col. 4, lines 8-12, “process parameters are determined for inserting the determined quantity of raw materials in each compartment to be filled on the basis of the dimensions of that compartment and on the basis of the list in the memory” – Arnauts teaches automatically determining how raw materials are best inserted for each compartment and teaches that lying/horizontal orientation improves filling by dispersing raw material over the compartment bottom. It would have been obvious to repeat the same orientation selection/filling/hardening process for another partially open compartment by changing the object to a further orientation when needed. This would predictably allow each selected partially open space to be filled with the open side upward and the closed surface below so that gravity assists retention and uniform distribution during hardening.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Arnauts and Baluch teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Arnauts further teaches wherein said processor is configured to estimate an amount of foam to be injected (Col. 31, lines 1-6, “digital computer system comprises a calculation unit and a computer program that calculates a quantity of raw materials to be inserted in at least one compartment of the assembly for forming a foam insulation layer with a predetermined thickness on the basis of the CAD data”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Arnauts and Baluch teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Baluch further teaches wherein said processor is configured to determine a rate of foam introduction at at least one point in time (Col. 7, lines 5-11, “From all the input data the computer then calculates the individual shot size, the individual flow rate in grams per second of each constituent, the demand count rate in counts per second and the divisor necessary to achieve the desired count rate”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Arnauts and Baluch teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Baluch further teaches data regarding characteristics of at least one foam applicator (Col. 3, lines 29-33, “each is connected through a pump 20 and feed line 22 to a mixing head 24 where the separate streams of material are blended and emitted through a discharge nozzle 26 into a mold 16 which is carried past the discharge nozzle by a conveyor 28.”; Col. 7, lines 1-5, “It is also required to enter the number of encoder output counts for each gram of material flowing through each pump. This depends upon the pump characteristics as well as the density of the constituent.”), such as foam introduction rates supported by the applicator (Col. 7, lines 5-11, “From all the input data the computer then calculates the individual shot size, the individual flow rate in grams per second of each constituent, the demand count rate in counts per second and the divisor necessary to achieve the desired count rate”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Arnauts and Baluch teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Baluch further teaches wherein the rate of foam introduction is computed in real time or near-real time (Col. 4, lines 50-57, “Since the computer determines both the master frequency and the divisor it directly controls the demand count rate. The chief function of the servo drive circuit is to control its associated pump to ensure that the constituent flow rate is proportional to the demand count rate. This is accomplished by detecting the actual flow rate by the encoder 42.”- Baluch teaches calculating individual flow rates and demand count rates and controlling pump output so the actual flow rate tracks the demand count rate.).
Baluch does not explicitly teach wherein said rate comprises a rate of injection determined for each individual instance of the unit, given that one instance of the unit includes one set of internal elements, whereas another instance of the same unit includes an entirely different set of internal elements.
However, Arnauts teaches determining parameters for each individual instance of the unit, given that one instance of the unit includes one set of internal elements, whereas another instance of the same unit includes an entirely different set of internal elements (Col. 2, lines 28-32, “By making use of the data of the assembly, the production process can be automated to a high degree and skeleton framing segments in different shapes and dimensions can be produced (every apartment is different).”; Col. 13, lines 15-23, “By identifying the assembly 2 and reading the data of the data carrier 40 (FIG. 4A) or retrieving them from the corresponding CAD data (FIG. 4B), the method according to the invention can be used for manufacturing skeleton framing segments 1, each with different dimensions, thus rendering the method extremely flexible and providing the architect of the building with enormous freedom in terms of dimensions and shapes” – The “individual instance of the unit” corresponds to each particular CAD defined assembly/skeletal framing segment being filled, and the “set of internal elements” corresponds to the internal beams, compartments, hollow spaces, spaces not to be filled, and/or technical devices of that particular assembly.).
Regarding claim 15, Arnauts teaches a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein, said computer readable program code adapted to be executed (Col. 7, lines 28-32, “computer program which is directly loadable into the internal memory of the digital computer system of the above-mentioned device, comprising software code fragments for executing the above-mentioned method”) to implement a fabrication method (Col. 1, lines 9-13, “a method for manufacturing a pre-insulated skeleton framing segment for a building to be 10 constructed, more specifically a skeleton framing segment which is at least partially filled with a foam insulation layer during its production.”) comprising:
providing a digital file storing metadata describing an object having an interior (Col. 12, lines 37-45, “providing a 3D computer model of the skeleton framing segment 1 in the form of CAD data, and storing it in a database 21 (step 201) … the assembly 2 having at least one compartment 5 with a hollow space 14 (step 202)”; Col. 2, lines 17-20, “all the required data, such as dimensions of the assembly and the number, size and location of the spaces to be filled, can be read or retrieved, and optionally also the spaces which are not to be filled”); and
configuring a hardware processor to access foam specification data describing at least one type of foam (Col. 20, lines 49-54, “digital computer system 20 is provided with a calculation unit and a computer program for determining a quantity of raw materials to be inserted in the at least one compartment 5 for forming a foam insulation layer 8 with the predetermined thickness 15 on the basis of the data on the data carrier 40”; Col. 20, lines 8-11, “desired thickness 15 of the foam insulation layer 8 to be applied taking into account known reaction speed tables and hardening tables of the raw materials used”), and which, accordingly, and according to said file describing the object, controls introduction of said at least one type of foam into the interior (Col. 23, lines 50-58, “press 31 further comprises two nozzles 25, which in FIG. 13 have the form of two injection nozzles 25A, 25B for injecting the raw materials into the openings 11. The positions X1, X2, X4 of the openings 11 of the first assembly 2 (see FIG. 14, assembly bottom left) are determined from the data on the data carrier 40 (directly or indirectly via retrieving the CAD data), and the injection nozzles 25 are positioned in front of or in the openings 11 of the assembly 2.”),
wherein foam characteristics which are stored include each foam's expansion time and/or time required for each type of foam to harden (Col. 20, lines 9-11, “taking into account known reaction speed tables and hardening tables of the raw materials used”).
Arnauts does not explicitly teach wherein the hardware processor receives inputs determining which types of foam are to be inserted, and then accesses, from memory, characteristics of each type of foam and, accordingly, determines a roadmap for inserting these foams including which should be inserted first, how much of each type to insert, and how long to wait between inserting one type of foam and inserting a next type.
However, Baluch teaches wherein the hardware processor receives inputs determining which types of foam are to be inserted (Col. 3, lines 12-13, “one mixture of material is used for the two wings 14 and a second mixture is used for the center 12”), and then accesses, from memory, characteristics of each type of foam (Col. 7, lines 6-16, “From all the input data the computer then calculates the individual shot size, the individual flow rate in grams per second of each constituent, the demand count rate in counts per second and the divisor necessary to achieve the desired count rate … the necessary input data for many different shots are stored in the computer memory and then are appropriately recalled by the computer at the time of charging a particular mold”) and, accordingly, determines a roadmap for inserting these foams (Col. 7, lines 18-28, “computer program for controlling the urethane polymer mixtures for a number of shots in series as shown in FIG. 6 with a dwell time between adjacent shots … the first several steps include inputting the data as shown in Tables 1 and 2 for several different shots as well as the dwell time between shots” – shots in a series is interpreted as a roadmap) including which should be inserted first (Col. 3, lines 23-26, “two types of material are discharged into the mold from a single nozzle in the sequence 14a, 12a, 14a, so that the polymer mixture 25 changes twice during the charging of the mold 16” – the programmed sequence identifies the first material insertion, the next material insertion, and the following material insertion.), how much of each type to insert (Col 7, lines 6-8, “From all the input data the computer then calculates the individual shot size”), and how long to wait between inserting one type of foam and inserting a next type (Col. 7, lines 21-22, “dwell time between adjacent shots” - dwell time is how long to wait between inserting one type of foam and inserting a next type).
Arnauts and Baluch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to foam-based manufacturing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above CAD-based foam-filling method, as taught by Arnauts, and incorporate computer controlled sequential shot techniques, so that the CAD controlled filling system could insert different foam/polymer mixtures in a determined order, with determined amounts and dwell times, to produce different foam properties in different regions of the object while maintaining automated dispensing control, as taught by Baluch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce complexity and equipment duplication while enabling different foam properties in different regions, as suggested by Baluch (Col. 1, lines 29-37).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnauts US 9,162,381 B2 (hereinafter Arnauts) in view of Rust US 2005/0029148 A1 (hereinafter Rust).
Regarding claim 7, Arnauts teaches an object fabrication system (Col. 1, lines 9-13, “a method for manufacturing a pre-insulated skeleton framing segment for a building to be 10 constructed, more specifically a skeleton framing segment which is at least partially filled with a foam insulation layer during its production.”) comprising:
a digital file storing metadata describing an object having an interior (Col. 12, lines 37-45, “providing a 3D computer model of the skeleton framing segment 1 in the form of CAD data, and storing it in a database 21 (step 201) … the assembly 2 having at least one compartment 5 with a hollow space 14 (step 202)”; Col. 2, lines 17-20, “all the required data, such as dimensions of the assembly and the number, size and location of the spaces to be filled, can be read or retrieved, and optionally also the spaces which are not to be filled”); and
a hardware processor configured to access foam specification data describing at least one type of foam (Col. 20, lines 49-54, “digital computer system 20 is provided with a calculation unit and a computer program for determining a quantity of raw materials to be inserted in the at least one compartment 5 for forming a foam insulation layer 8 with the predetermined thickness 15 on the basis of the data on the data carrier 40”; Col. 20, lines 8-11, “desired thickness 15 of the foam insulation layer 8 to be applied taking into account known reaction speed tables and hardening tables of the raw materials used”), and which, accordingly, and according to said file describing the object, controls introduction of said at least one type of foam into the interior (Col. 23, lines 50-58, “press 31 further comprises two nozzles 25, which in FIG. 13 have the form of two injection nozzles 25A, 25B for injecting the raw materials into the openings 11. The positions X1, X2, X4 of the openings 11 of the first assembly 2 (see FIG. 14, assembly bottom left) are determined from the data on the data carrier 40 (directly or indirectly via retrieving the CAD data), and the injection nozzles 25 are positioned in front of or in the openings 11 of the assembly 2.”).
Arnauts does not explicitly teach dividing the object's volume by the expansion factor yields an amount of foam mass to be used for an injection.
However, Rust teaches or at least suggests dividing the object's volume by the expansion factor yields an amount of foam mass to be used for an injection (Par. [0047], “When combined, the A and B components typically expand to approximately 33 times the volume of their liquid state, resulting in a foam with a density of approximately 1.8 to 3.0 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and a compression strength of approximately 23 pounds per square inch (psi). This 33 times expansion factor assumes a pouch in a cavity sufficiently large to permit this much expansion”; Par. [0049], “Cavity volume ranging from 1 to 5000 or more cubic inches may be accommodated by proportionally increasing or decreasing the amount of the foam components and pouch sizes as appropriate.” – the expansion factor defines the relationship between the desired expanded foam volume and the corresponding raw/quid foam component volume, and the known foam density allows that foam amount to be expressed as mass.).
Arnauts and Rust are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to foam-based manufacturing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above CAD-based foam-filling method, as taught by Arnauts, and incorporate expansion factor as the material-dependent constant/relationship in order to predictably determine the amount of liquid/raw foam components required to produce the desired expanded foam volume in the compartment, as taught by Rust.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve control of high expansion foam in body cavities during assembly or repair, as suggested by Rust (Par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Arnauts and Rust teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Arnauts further teaches wherein the processor is in data communication with a sensor which provides the system with temperature data (Col. 28, lines 21-41, “computer program may further comprise software code fragments for executing one or more of the following tasks: … reading the sensors 29 for measuring the humidity and/or ambient temperature), and wherein, responsively, the processor computes in real time or in near real time, how much foam to introduce (Col. 3, lines 64-66, “determine the optimum quantity itself, optionally taking account of ambient factors such as temperature, moisture” – in order for the processor to take temperature into account when calculating how much foam to introduce, it must compute in real time or in near real time).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnauts US 9,162,381 B2 (hereinafter Arnauts) in view of Rust US 2005/0029148 A1 (hereinafter Rust), and further in view of Keating et al. US 10,189,187 B2 (hereinafter Keating)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Arnauts and Rust teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Arnauts and Rust do not explicitly teach wherein the digital file includes an indication of at least one trajectory along which a foam applicator travels when filling the object with at least one respective type of foam.
However, Keating teaches wherein the digital file includes an indication of at least one trajectory along which a foam applicator travels when filling the object with at least one respective type of foam (Col. 4, lines 57-65, “First, digital information that includes or is derived from toolpaths or a CAD model is sent to a fabricator. In turn, the fabricator is configured to 3D print an object in accordance with this digital information 101 … The layers may be sent to the fabricator that is spraying the foam layers. The fabricator sprays fast-curing foam, layer by layer, each layer in accordance with the digital information 103.”).
Arnauts, Rust, and Keating are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to foam-based manufacturing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above CAD-based foam-filling method, as taught by Arnauts and Rust, and incorporate digital toolpaths for applying foam layers, as taught by Keating.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “cost, accuracy, and reach”, as suggested by Keating (Col. 10, lines 48-49).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnauts US 9,162,381 B2 (hereinafter Arnauts) in view of Rust US 2005/0029148 A1 (hereinafter Rust), and further in view of Baluch et al. US 4,571,319 (hereinafter Baluch).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Arnauts and Rust teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Arnauts and Rust do not explicitly teach wherein the system provides a signal controlling a rate at which a foam applicator injects foam, at each of plural points in time.
However, Baluch teaches wherein the system provides a signal controlling a rate at which a foam applicator injects foam, at each of plural points in time (Col. 1, lines 31-34, “mold a seat of variable density or hardness of foam in a single stage utilizing a number of mixing heads with separate discharge nozzles for charging separate parts of a mold and then foaming the material.”; Col. 3, lines 34-37, “Each pump 20 is driven by a motor 30 which has its speed and hence the pump output controlled by a controller 32 which in turn has its operation controlled by a computer 34”; Col. 3, Lines 62-66, “A master digital output card 52 is connected to the master frequency circuit 48 and supplies thereto a digital signal which controls the frequency which is sent out to all the servo drive circuits 50”; Col. 4, lines 48-56, “The output frequency on line 66 is termed the "demand count rate". Since the computer determines both the master frequency and the divisor it directly controls the demand count rate. The chief function of the servo drive circuit 50 is to control its associated pump to ensure that the constituent flow rate is proportional to the demand count rate.”; Fig. 6-7, Col. 5, lines 41-42, “The graphs show constituent flow rates versus time.”)
Arnauts, Rust, and Baluch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to foam-based manufacturing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above CAD-based foam-filling method, as taught by Arnauts and Rust, and incorporate using a signal to control the rate at which a foam applicator injects foam at different points in time, as taught by Baluch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve pump control during acceleration and deceleration, as suggested by Baluch (Col. 5, lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Arnauts, Rust, and Baluch teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Baluch further teaches wherein said rate is pre-computed as a function of time (Fig. 6-7, Col. 5, lines 41-42, “The graphs show constituent flow rates versus time.”; Col. 5, lines 62-68, “In practice the ramp times t, equal 0.1 second and since the system is digitally controlled the ramps take place in stepped increments of preferably 10 steps in each ramp … The computer controls the ramping by controlling the demand count rate”; Col. 7, lines 6-11, “From all the input data the computer then calculates the individual shot size, the individual flow rate in grams per second of each constituent, the demand count rate in counts per second and the divisor necessary to achieve the desired count rate”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnauts US 9,162,381 B2 (hereinafter Arnauts) in view of Rust US 2005/0029148 A1 (hereinafter Rust) and Baluch et al. US 4,571,319 (hereinafter Baluch), and further in view of Holzwarth US 2007/0179657 A1 (hereinafter Holzwarth).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Arnauts, Rust, and Baluch teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Baluch further teaches wherein the signal controls the foam applicator to inject foam (Col. 1, lines 31-34, “mold a seat of variable density or hardness of foam in a single stage utilizing a number of mixing heads with separate discharge nozzles for charging separate parts of a mold and then foaming the material.”; Col. 3, lines 34-37, “Each pump 20 is driven by a motor 30 which has its speed and hence the pump output controlled by a controller 32 which in turn has its operation controlled by a computer 34”; Col. 3, Lines 62-66, “A master digital output card 52 is connected to the master frequency circuit 48 and supplies thereto a digital signal which controls the frequency which is sent out to all the servo drive circuits 50”; Col. 4, lines 48-56, “The output frequency on line 66 is termed the "demand count rate". Since the computer determines both the master frequency and the divisor it directly controls the demand count rate. The chief function of the servo drive circuit 50 is to control its associated pump to ensure that the constituent flow rate is proportional to the demand count rate.”),
wherein the reaction time of an applicator is known (Col. 5, lines 62-68, “In practice the ramp times t, equal 0.1 second and since the system is digitally controlled the ramps take place in stepped increments of preferably 10 steps in each ramp … The computer controls the ramping by controlling the demand count rate”).
Arnauts, Rust, and Baluch do not explicitly teach injecting at a first rate when deployed at a first height at which the volume has a first cross section, and to inject at a second rate, lower than the first rate, when deployed at a second height at which the volume has a second cross section which is smaller than the first cross section,
wherein a tolerance for reaching a desired fill up level is achieved by employing a first filling rate with a first cross section, and using a second filling rate, higher than the first filling rate with a second cross section which is larger than said first cross section.
However, Holzwarth teaches injecting at a first rate when deployed at a first height (Par. [0002], “The position of the extrusion head relative to the base is then incremented along a z-axis (perpendicular to the x-y plane), and the process is then repeated to form a 3D object resembling the CAD model”; Par. [0048], “a typical data point includes an array as follows: (x, y, z, deposition rate), where the x-coordinate and y-coordinate define a location within a given layer at the z-coordinate along the z-axis”) at which the volume has a first cross section (Par. [0046], “host computer then calculates void width 76w of void region 20 at a location along the x-axis of center point 76cp (step 60).”; Par. [0047], “center point 76cp is labeled as vertex 76v and is assigned a "first deposition rate", where the first deposition rate is based on void width 76w (step 68).” – Holzwarth’s void width corresponds to the size of the cross-sectional region being filled at a given layer or height. A larger void width indicates a larger region to be filled and therefore a larger effective cross-sectional portion.), and to inject at a second rate, lower than the first rate, when deployed at a second height at which the volume has a second cross section which is smaller than the first cross section (Par. [0055], “the second deposition rate of vertex 80v is the deposition rate of build material required to adequately fill void region 20 at a location of vertex 80v, and is proportional to void width 80w. Accordingly, because the void widths of void region 20 decrease in the positive x-direction, the second deposition rate is less than the first deposition rate” – Applying Holzwarth’s rate-selection principle to different z-axis layers having different cross-sectional sizes would have predictably resulted in a higher rate for a larger cross-section and a lower rate for a smaller cross-section.),
wherein a tolerance for reaching a desired fill up level is achieved by employing a first filling rate with a first cross section, and using a second filling rate, higher than the first filling rate with a second cross section which is larger than said first cross section (Par. [0055], “the second deposition rate of vertex 80v is the deposition rate of build material required to adequately fill void region 20 at a location of vertex 80v, and is proportional to void width 80w. Accordingly, because the void widths of void region 20 decrease in the positive x-direction, the second deposition rate is less than the first deposition rate”; Par. [0061], “The decreasing deposition rates reduce the risk of overfilling void region 20 as the void widths decrease generally along the x-axis in this example.” – Holzwarth teaches the same proportional relationship, a larger cross-sectional region receives a higher rate and a smaller cross-sectional region receives a lower rate. Holzwarth also teaches or suggests the tolerance for reaching a desired fill up level because Holzwarth selects deposition rates required to adequately fill the void region and teaches that decreasing deposition rates as void widths decrease reduces the risk of overfilling.).
Arnauts, Rust, Baluch, and Holzwarth are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all relate to computer-controlled dispensing/deposition of flowable material through an applicator to form or fill regions of an object.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above CAD-based foam-filling method, as taught by Arnauts, Rust, and Baluch, and incorporate geometry-based variable-rate control, as taught by Holzwarth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “reducing porosity within the 3D object, thereby preserving the structural integrity and the sealing properties of the 3D object”, as suggested by Holzwarth (Par. [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lambach et al. [US 2021/0252543 A1] teaches methods for manufacturing foam wall structures.
Wang et al. [US 5,740,074 A] teaches a method for filling a compartment cavity. such as a refrigerative unit cavity. with a foam produced by an expansion and solidification of a foaming mixture of predetermined chemicals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights