Detailed Action
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 responsive to the 2/17/2026 communication(s). As per the claims filed 6/23/2025:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 21-26 were cancelled.
Claim(s) 1 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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 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.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is a method claim, however line one reads: “the system comprising” it should read “the method comprising”
Claim 2 should read: “the height sensor is optical…”
Claim 5, line 2 should read: “for the height reading…”
Claim 15 should read: “wherein the height sensor is placed…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the part" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "line advance motion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the average" and “the system” in lines 2 and 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the full build" and “the full height” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "printer image space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the correction" in line 1 and “the exposure time of each pixel printer” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "correction", “the randomized”, “any such air pixel” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "on the build sheet" “the built-in” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the structure supporting" in line 2 and “said load” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the transfer, fusing or transfusing element" and “the reciprocating cycle” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the build volume", “the known locations”, “the sliced image data” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the fiducials" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the fiducials" and “the build volume” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the fiducials" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "fiducial detection" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 9 based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 5 reads: “wherein a previously-printed image is used as a mask for the sensor reading and the average of the masked error matrix is used as feedback for one or more biases (vzero) in the system to control average layer thickness”. It is unclear what a previously-printed image encompasses, since it could refer to a previously additively manufactured build or a previously built topographical height map. Additionally, it is unclear what the one or more biases encompass. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the claim as using previous data as feedback to control subsequent layers.
Claim 7 reads: “wherein the error matrix is adjusted to zero out Z-axis motion synchronous with X-axis motion” it is unclear what the axis of motion refer to, are they related to the height sensor or to the additive manufacturing system. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as adjusting the z-dimension to improve the topographical image.
Claim 8 further recites “and a correction matrix is mapped” it is unclear whether this is a second instance of a correction matrix or is the same correction matrix as in claim 1. Thus the claim is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites: “a correction mask is registered to image space with an automated algorithm comprising template matching with rotation and scale” it is unclear what the rotation and scale should match with, the template or the additively manufactured build. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as matching a calibration pattern.
Claim 11 recites: “wherein the correction is applied as a multiplier to the exposure time of each pixel printer”. Claim 1 failed to introduce the idea of pixels or exposure time, claim 1 only recites a correction matrix to adjust future layers of build material, thus there is no nexus between the layers of material and a possible pixel and exposure time, thus the claims is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as using the correction matrix.
Claim 12 recites: “wherein correction is applied as the randomized or structured insertion of non-imaged pixels at specified densities, where the position of any such air pixel is varied from layer to layer”. Claim 1 failed to introduce the idea of non-imaged pixels or air pixels, claim 1 only recites a correction matrix to adjust future layers of build material, thus there is no nexus between the layers of material and a possible pixel or air pixel, thus the claims is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as using the correction matrix.
Claim 14 reads: “wherein a measured force applied to the structure supporting the build and/or sensor is used to predict and compensate for errors caused by structural deflection under said load”. It is unclear what is the measured force is or what means are necessary for measuring such force. Secondly, it is unclear what the “structure supporting the build” encompasses. Thirdly, the “structural” deflection is not tied to the “supporting structure” nor to the “additively manufactured build” of claim 1, thus it is indefinite. Lastly, “said load” is unclear since there is nothing in the claim or parent claim that indicates a structure being under load. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as using the correction matrix.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aaron Preston et al (US 2021/0370398; Published: 12/2/2021)(hereinafter: Preston).
Note: Preston was cited in the 2/17/2026 IDS.
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Preston discloses a method for additive manufacturing, the system comprising:
providing a height sensor for detecting the local height of a portion of an additively manufactured build relative to a known datum [[0092] The camera 630 may include one or more sensors, including an image sensor, a stereoscopic (i.e., 3D) camera, a distance sensor (e.g., laser or infrared distance sensor), and/or other devices for imaging or measurements. As shown in FIG. 6B, during such operation, the camera 630 may capture an image 635 of scenes below the assembly 600, which can include the object 612 and/or the build plate 605. Further, during a printing operation, when a given layer of the object 612 is being printed via the print head 620, the camera can capture images of the layer concurrently with the printing [0118] Those images may be processed, for example by deriving the coordinates and bounds of the printed line 682, and the relevant image date may be compared against the expected printed line according to the object model 1320 and/or the tool path 661 (1415). If the comparison reveals any errors from the expected printed line (e.g., deviation 675), those errors may be identified (1420)]; Camera serves as a height sensor, image data is compared against the model (known datum) in order to identify errors.
building a topographical height map using data from the height sensor [[0095] In place of (or in addition to) the use of overlapping images, the assembly 600 may employ a stereoscopic camera to capture multiple, offset images simultaneously. Using the stereoscopic data, the control system may derive a depth map of the build plate surface, which indicates deviations from a defined plane at a surface of the build plate 605.];
generating an error matrix based upon the height map; using the error matrix to generate a corresponding correction matrix [[0114] FIGS. 12A-B are block diagrams of error data in one embodiment. FIG. 12A depicts a table 1200 of correction data, while FIG. 12B depicts an example entry 1205 within the table 1200. The table 1200 may be compiled by a printer control system (e.g., system 118 of FIG. 1) during or following the concurrent scanning and printing of an object, such as the processes described above with reference to FIGS. 6A-11B, and each entry (e.g., entry 1205) in the table 1200 may correspond to a detected error (e.g., deviation or defect) in the printed object. The table 1200 may include a plurality of rows, where each row corresponds to a given layer of the printed object (e.g., layers 1-N). Each row may be populated by entries corresponding to the detected error(s) in the printing of the respective layer.] and
using the correction matrix to adjust future layers of build material to maintain planarity of the top of the part [[0116] A control system may process the entries of the table 1200 to determine actions to correct for the errors, such as reconfiguring the motion system of the printer or modifying the toolpath or model corresponding to the object.].
Claim 2:
As per claim 2 which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein the sensor is optical, pneumatic, or capacitive [[0092] The camera 630 may include one or more sensors, including an image sensor, a stereoscopic (i.e., 3D) camera, a distance sensor (e.g., laser or infrared distance sensor), and/or other devices for imaging or measurements. As shown in FIG. 6B, during such operation, the camera 630 may capture an image 635 of scenes below the assembly 600, which can include the object 612 and/or the build plate 605. Further, during a printing operation, when a given layer of the object 612 is being printed via the print head 620, the camera can capture images of the layer concurrently with the printing].
Claim 3:
As per claim 3 which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein the height sensor is line-scan, area-scan, or raster-scan. [[0092] The camera 630 may include one or more sensors, including an image sensor, a stereoscopic (i.e., 3D) camera, a distance sensor (e.g., laser or infrared distance sensor), and/or other devices for imaging or measurements. As shown in FIG. 6B, during such operation, the camera 630 may capture an image 635 of scenes below the assembly 600, which can include the object 612 and/or the build plate 605. Further, during a printing operation, when a given layer of the object 612 is being printed via the print head 620, the camera can capture images of the layer concurrently with the printing]. Camera serves as an line-scan or area-scan.
Claim 4:
As per claim 4 which depends on claim 3, Preston discloses, wherein the height sensor is a line-scan or a raster- scan, and line advance motion is be supplied by the motion of the build along its process direction. [[0092] The camera 630 may include one or more sensors, including an image sensor, a stereoscopic (i.e., 3D) camera, a distance sensor (e.g., laser or infrared distance sensor), and/or other devices for imaging or measurements. As shown in FIG. 6B, during such operation, the camera 630 may capture an image 635 of scenes below the assembly 600, which can include the object 612 and/or the build plate 605. Further, during a printing operation, when a given layer of the object 612 is being printed via the print head 620, the camera can capture images of the layer concurrently with the printing]. Camera serves as an line-scan or area-scan. See fig 7B camera moves along the progress direction of the printer head.
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein a previously-printed image is used as a mask for the sensor reading and the average of the masked error matrix is used as feedback for one or more biases (vzero) in the system to control average layer thickness. [[0121] Further, when the process 1400 is repeated, the operation of filtering errors (1435) may account for error data in previous cycles, which can aid in the determination of whether a detected error is repeatable].
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein the height sensor comprises an array of individual sensors that span the full build area and are triggered to sample the build height based on an external input synchronized to platen motion.[[0092] The camera 630 may include one or more sensors, including an image sensor, a stereoscopic (i.e., 3D) camera, a distance sensor (e.g., laser or infrared distance sensor), and/or other devices for imaging or measurements. As shown in FIG. 6B, during such operation, the camera 630 may capture an image 635 of scenes below the assembly 600, which can include the object 612 and/or the build plate 605.]
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein the error matrix is adjusted to zero out Z-axis motion synchronous with X-axis motion [[0096] In addition to improving the accuracy of a depth map of the surface of the build plate 605, the distance sensor may also be implemented during a calibration process or a printing operation to adjust the height of the assembly 600 above the build plate 605 as a function of the measured Z-dimension 637. The assembly 600 may employ other solutions for determining the Z-dimension 637, such as measuring the width of a beam of light directed at the surface of the build plate 605, or employing a camera with a narrow focus range.].
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein a correction mask is registered to image space manually. [[0063] the camera 150 may be used to create the digital twin 140 described above, or to more generally facilitate machine vision functions or facilitate remote monitoring of a fabrication process. Video or still images from the camera 150 may also or instead be used to dynamically correct a print process, or to visualize where and how automated or manual adjustments should be made,[0093] The resulting image data can be implemented to detect any defects in the printed object, and make corresponding corrections to improve the printing of successive objects, as described below with reference to FIGS. 11A-B and 14. In further embodiments, corrections or improvements to a printed object may be made in response to a scan of the object itself, as described below with reference to FIG. 15.]
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein a correction mask is registered to image space with an automated algorithm comprising template matching with rotation and scale.[[0093] Similarly, the assembly 600 can also scan a calibration object, such as a pattern printed on the build plate 605, and implement the corresponding image data to improve the printing of a subsequent object, as described below with reference to FIGS. 9A-B and 10.]
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein the correction is applied as a multiplier to the exposure time of each pixel printer. [[0116] A control system may process the entries of the table 1200 to determine actions to correct for the errors, such as reconfiguring the motion system of the printer or modifying the toolpath or model corresponding to the object.]
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein correction is applied as the randomized or structured insertion of non-imaged pixels at specified densities, where the position of any such air pixel is varied from layer to layer. [[0116] A control system may process the entries of the table 1200 to determine actions to correct for the errors, such as reconfiguring the motion system of the printer or modifying the toolpath or model corresponding to the object.].
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein the error matrix is calculated relative to a tare image, which is the sensed area prior to any material being deposited on the build sheet, allowing the built-in cancellation of any position-dependent structure deflections in the sensed height image [[0107] model of an object (e.g., the 3D model 122 or digital twin 140 described above with reference to FIG. 1) may be modified to incorporate one or more compensations comparable to those described above, directing the printer to print the object with compensation for the defects determined by the calibration pattern 662. For example, the object model may be repositioned or reoriented, or the geometry of the model may be modified (e.g., with portions of greater or lesser feedstock deposition) to compensate for the deviation 674 when printing the object, resulting in a printed object with greater fidelity to the original model. As an alternative to modifying an object model, the tool path for a printed object (e.g., a G-code instruction set) may be modified in a comparable manner to incorporate compensations for the detected defects.]
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein a correction is applied to the error matrix, wherein a measured force applied to the structure supporting the build and/or sensor is used to predict and compensate for errors caused by structural deflection under said load. [[0107] model of an object (e.g., the 3D model 122 or digital twin 140 described above with reference to FIG. 1) may be modified to incorporate one or more compensations comparable to those described above, directing the printer to print the object with compensation for the defects determined by the calibration pattern 662. For example, the object model may be repositioned or reoriented, or the geometry of the model may be modified (e.g., with portions of greater or lesser feedstock deposition) to compensate for the deviation 674 when printing the object, resulting in a printed object with greater fidelity to the original model. As an alternative to modifying an object model, the tool path for a printed object (e.g., a G-code instruction set) may be modified in a comparable manner to incorporate compensations for the detected defects.]
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses wherein the sensor is placed immediately adjacent to the transfer, fusing, or transfusing element, such that the reciprocating cycle time of the build can be minimized. [see figure 7b, sensor is placed adjacent to the fusing element].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preston in view of Sameh Khamis et al (US PG Pub No.2020/0099920; Published: 03/26/2020)(hereinafter: Khamis.)
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Preston failed to specifically disclose wherein the height sensor has a coarser resolution than printer image space, and a correction matrix is mapped to printer image space by a bilinear interpolation.
Khamis, in the same field of depth imaging discloses this limitation in that [the processor downsamples the depth image 136 captured by the left depth camera 114 to generate a first (left) reduced-resolution image (not shown) and downsamples the depth image 138 captured by the right depth camera 116 to generate a second (right) reduced-resolution image (not shown). The processor matches patches of the left reduced-resolution image to patches of the right reduced-resolution image to generate a coarse depth map of the environment 112. The processor then upsamples the coarse depth map using, e.g., bilinear interpolation, to the original resolution to predict a full-resolution disparity (depth) map.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the depth capturing imaging of Preston to include a correction matrix mapped to printer image space by a bilinear interpolation when the height sensor has a coarser resolution than the printer image space as disclosed by Khamis. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate subpixel precision within a computational budget (0020).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preston in view of Jay Tobia et al (US PG Pub No.2019/0329500; Published: 10/31/2019)(hereinafter: Tobia.)
Claim 16:
As per claim 16, which depends on claim 1, Preston discloses used as an input to an image transformation function to register the scan data to the writer data [0093] The assembly 600, and image data captured by the camera 630 of the assembly 600, can be applied in several ways to improve the printing of objects by the 3D printer. For example, the assembly 600 can capture image data of the build plate 605, and, based on this image data, correct for any defects or deviations in the build plate 605 when building an object.].
Preston failed to specifically disclose wherein dedicated features are embedded within the build volume, detected by means of an image processing algorithm, compared to the known locations of those same features in the sliced image data.
Tobia, in the same field of additive manufacturing discloses this limitation in that [[0086] The printed assembly 450 may include a feature (e.g., fiducial), a mark, or a combination thereof applied thereto. For example, the printed assembly 450 may include the fiducial 455a and/or the mark 457a applied to the raft 452 and/or the object 446 may have the fiducial 455b and/or mark 457b applied thereto. Such fiducials and marks may be monitored by obtaining at least one value associated with a characteristic of such fiducials or marks at various points along the processing chain. [0087] According to an example embodiment, disclosed further below, the object 446 may be a calibration object or the entire printed assembly 450 may be the calibration object. As such, the object 446 may include the mark 457b or the fiducial 455b and/or the printed assembly 450 may include the mark 457a or the fiducial 455a that may be tracked as part of a calibration method for determining adjustments to settings of printing or processing stages, a 3D model representing the 3D object, or a combination thereof. It should be understood that the fiducials 455a and 455b and the marks 457a and 457b of FIG. 4 are for illustrative purposes and that any suitable fiducial or mark may be applied.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the additive manufacturing method of Preston to include dedicated features that are embedded within the build volume, detected by means of an image processing algorithm, compared to the known locations of those same features in the sliced image data as disclosed by Tobia. The motivation for doing so would have been since by monitoring or tracking such characteristics, adjustments may be made to the additive manufacturing system to improve fidelity of the desired object(0087).
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, which depends on claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16 above. Additionally, Preston and Tobia disclose wherein the fiducials are at fixed, dedicated locations where operators are not permitted to print parts. Tobia, [see fig 4, fiducial element 455a].
Claim 18:
As per claim 18, which depends on claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16 above. Additionally, Preston and Tobia disclose wherein the fiducials are automatically or manually located at regions where operators have not placed parts in the build volume. Tobia, [see fig 4, fiducial element 455a].
Claim 19:
As per claim 19, which depends on claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16 above. Additionally, Preston and Tobia disclose wherein the fiducials detected by various methods, including blob detection, template matching, and circle detection. Tobia, [[0087] By monitoring or tracking such characteristics, adjustments may be made to the additive manufacturing system to improve fidelity of the desired object 406 being produced by the additive manufacturing system. According to an example embodiment, disclosed further below, the object 446 may be a calibration object or the entire printed assembly 450 may be the calibration object. As such, the object 446 may include the mark 457b or the fiducial 455b and/or the printed assembly 450 may include the mark 457a or the fiducial 455a that may be tracked as part of a calibration method for determining adjustments to settings of printing or processing stages, a 3D model representing the 3D object, or a combination thereof]. In order to monitor the fiducials, they must be able to be detected at least via matching.
Claim 20:
As per claim 20, which depends on claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16 above. Additionally, Preston and Tobia disclose wherein fiducial detection is limited to a region-of- interest around each fiducial encompassing the expected variability in fiducial locations, to reduce computation time required. Tobia, [[0087] As such, the object 446 may include the mark 457b or the fiducial 455b and/or the printed assembly 450 may include the mark 457a or the fiducial 455a that may be tracked as part of a calibration method for determining adjustments to settings of printing or processing stages, a 3D model representing the 3D object, or a combination thereof.]. Fiducials are limited to a region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights