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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11718036 in view of Nehme.
Table I:
Mapping of contending claims in the patent that contains double patenting issues.
Current Application (18737903)
Patent (US 11718036 B2) in view of Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1)
1
1
13
2
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7, 8
Table II:
Current Application (18737903)
Patent (US 11718036 B2) in view of Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1)
Claim 1, A method for printing a three-dimensional object, comprising:
receiving, in computer memory, a digital model of the three-dimensional object;
partitioning, using one or more computer processors and one or more partitioning parameters, the digital model of the three-dimensional object into a plurality of partitions, wherein a partition of the plurality of partitions comprises a plurality of slices, wherein a slice of the plurality of slices comprises a plurality of segments, and
receiving one or more printing parameters that specify a printing configuration for at least one segment of the plurality of segments; and
generating printing instructions based at least in part on the one or more printing parameters, which printing instructions are usable by a printer to print the three-dimensional object.
wherein the one or more partitioning parameters are selected from the group consisting of: a partition hierarchy, an arrangement of order of the plurality of slices, an arrangement of order of the plurality of segments, a number of slices, a number of segments, a region of the three-dimensional object, a region of at least one of the plurality of partitions, and a region of at least one of the plurality of slices;
Claim 1, A method for printing a three-dimensional object, comprising:
(a) receiving in computer memory a digital model of said three-dimensional object;
(b) using one or more computer processors to partition said digital model of said three-dimensional object into a plurality of partitions, wherein a partition of said plurality of partitions comprises a plurality of slices, and wherein a slice of said plurality of slices comprises a plurality of segments;
. . .
(c) receiving, from a user, one or more parameters that specify a printing configuration for at least one directionally convex sub-polygon; and
(d) generating printing instructions based at least in part on said one or more parameters, which printing instructions are usable by a printer to print said three-dimensional object.
Nehme: [0062] After digital part 46 is loaded, computer 12 generates a tree data structure for digital part 46 by partitioning the geometry of digital part 46 into multiple subsets (step 58). . . For instance, with a BSP tree, computer 12 may recursively partition digital part 46 into convex subsets. (corresponding to a partition hierarchy)
[0063] Computer 12 may then generate a 3D grid of cells defining a volume bounding box for the tree data structure of digital part 46 (step 60), where the cells of the 3D grid desirably correspond in size to the subsets of the tree data structure.
Claim 1 is rejected for obviousness type double patenting over claim 1 of the patent 11718036 in view of Nehme for having similar limitations as described in Table 2.
The patent 11718036 fails to disclose “wherein the one or more partitioning parameters are selected from the group consisting of: a partition hierarchy, an arrangement of order of the plurality of slices, an arrangement of order of the plurality of segments, a number of slices, a number of segments, a region of the three-dimensional object, a region of at least one of the plurality of partitions, and a region of at least one of the plurality of slices;” in Claim 1. Nehme teaches the one or more partitioning parameters being a partition hierarchy (¶62-63). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the method (taught by patent 11718036 ) to include a partition parameter such as a partition hierarchy (taught by Nehme). The suggestions/motivations would have been “this allows computer 12 to quickly ping each cell of the 3D grid to determine whether a portion of the tree data structure for digital part 46 resides in a given cell." (¶63).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the inventions is the same. Claim 1 of current application is an obvious variant of claim 1 of the patent 11718036 in view of Nehme.
The same logic applies to Claims 13-17. They are rejected for obviousness type double patenting under claims 2 and 4-8 of the patent 11718036 .
Claims 1, 9, and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12059845 in view of Nehme.
Table II:
Mapping of contending claims in the patent that contains double patenting issues.
Current Application (18737903)
Patent (US 12059845 B2) in view of Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1)
1
1
9
2
16
3
17
4, 5
Table IV:
Current Application (18737903)
Patent (US 12059845 B2) in view of Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1)
Claim 1, A method for printing a three-dimensional object, comprising:
receiving, in computer memory, a digital model of the three-dimensional object;
partitioning, using one or more computer processors and one or more partitioning parameters, the digital model of the three-dimensional object into a plurality of partitions, wherein a partition of the plurality of partitions comprises a plurality of slices, wherein a slice of the plurality of slices comprises a plurality of segments, and
receiving one or more printing parameters that specify a printing configuration for at least one segment of the plurality of segments; and
generating printing instructions based at least in part on the one or more printing parameters, which printing instructions are usable by a printer to print the three-dimensional object.
wherein the one or more partitioning parameters are selected from the group consisting of: a partition hierarchy, an arrangement of order of the plurality of slices, an arrangement of order of the plurality of segments, a number of slices, a number of segments, a region of the three-dimensional object, a region of at least one of the plurality of partitions, and a region of at least one of the plurality of slices;
Claim 1, A method for printing a three-dimensional object, comprising:
a. receiving in computer memory a digital model of said three-dimensional object;
b. using one or more computer processors to partition said digital model of said three-dimensional object into a plurality of partitions, wherein a partition of said plurality of partitions comprises a plurality of slices, and wherein a slice of said plurality of slices comprises a plurality of segments;
c. receiving, from a user, one or more parameters that specify a printing configuration for at least one segment of said plurality of segments; . . .
e. generating printing instructions based at least in part on said one or more parameters, which printing instructions are usable by a printer to print said three-dimensional object.
Nehme: [0062] After digital part 46 is loaded, computer 12 generates a tree data structure for digital part 46 by partitioning the geometry of digital part 46 into multiple subsets (step 58). . . For instance, with a BSP tree, computer 12 may recursively partition digital part 46 into convex subsets. (corresponding to a partition hierarchy)
[0063] Computer 12 may then generate a 3D grid of cells defining a volume bounding box for the tree data structure of digital part 46 (step 60), where the cells of the 3D grid desirably correspond in size to the subsets of the tree data structure.
Claim 1 is rejected for obviousness type double patenting over claim 1 of the patent 12059845 in view of Nehme for having similar limitations as described in Table 2.
The patent 12059845 fails to disclose “wherein the one or more partitioning parameters are selected from the group consisting of: a partition hierarchy, an arrangement of order of the plurality of slices, an arrangement of order of the plurality of segments, a number of slices, a number of segments, a region of the three-dimensional object, a region of at least one of the plurality of partitions, and a region of at least one of the plurality of slices;” in Claim 1. Nehme teaches the one or more partitioning parameters being a partition hierarchy (¶62-63). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the method (taught by patent 11718036 ) to include a partition parameter such as a partition hierarchy (taught by Nehme). The suggestions/motivations would have been “this allows computer 12 to quickly ping each cell of the 3D grid to determine whether a portion of the tree data structure for digital part 46 resides in a given cell." (¶63).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the inventions is the same. Claim 1 of current application is an obvious variant of claim 1 of the patent 12059845 in view of Nehme.
The same logic applies to Claims 9 and 16-17. They are rejected for obviousness type double patenting under claims 2-5 of the patent 12059845.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-11, 14-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1), and in view of Bachrach et al. (US 20140253549 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nehme discloses A method for printing a three-dimensional object (¶1 reciting “The present disclosure relates to additive manufacturing processes for printing three-dimensional (3D) parts and support structures.” Figs. 1-3 showing an additive manufacturing system), comprising:
receiving, in computer memory, a digital model of the three-dimensional object;
partitioning, using one or more computer processors and one or more partitioning parameters, the digital model of the three-dimensional object into a plurality of partitions (As shown in Figs. 5-6, the 3D object 46 is partitioned into a plurality of partitions 114. ¶85 reciting “As shown in FIG. 5, after steps 56 and 58 of method 54 are performed, computer 12 generates grid 112, which is a 3D grid of cells 114 that define a volume bounding box for the tree data structure of digital part 46 (step 60 of method 54).”), wherein a partition of the plurality of partitions comprises a plurality of slices (Fig. 16 showing slices of the 3D object 148 and supporting layers 150. ¶135 disclosing slicing the 3D object and supporting layers according to the cells 114, and reciting “ as shown in FIG. 16, when used in conjunction with a tool-path generation process, cells 114 of grid 112 may have dimensions that correspond to a sliced layer increment for printing or otherwise building a 3D part with a particular additive manufacturing system (e.g., system 10). In this embodiment, the digital part 46a exported during step 74 of method 54 may include the oriented part for 3D part 32 (referred to as digital part 148), and also the digital support layers for support structure 34 (referred to as digital support layers 150). Furthermore, because cells 114 have dimensions that correspond to a sliced layer increment, SIG engine 50 effectively functions as a high-speed slicing program for orienting and slicing digital part 46 into multiple horizontal layers, and for generating digital support layers 150.” Each slice includes the digital part 46a segment and the digital support layer segment.), and wherein the one or more partitioning parameters are selected from the group consisting of: a partition hierarchy, an arrangement of order of the plurality of slices, an arrangement of order of the plurality of segments, a number of slices, a number of segments, a region of the three-dimensional object, a region of at least one of the plurality of partitions, and a region of at least one of the plurality of slices; (¶62 reciting “After digital part 46 is loaded, computer 12 generates a tree data structure for digital part 46 by partitioning the geometry of digital part 46 into multiple subsets (step 58). . . For instance, with a BSP tree, computer 12 may recursively partition digital part 46 into convex subsets.” (the tree corresponding to a partition hierarchy). Further, ¶63 reciting “Computer 12 may then generate a 3D grid of cells defining a volume bounding box for the tree data structure of digital part 46 (step 60), where the cells of the 3D grid desirably correspond in size to the subsets of the tree data structure.”) and
generating printing instructions, which printing instructions are usable by a printer to print the three-dimensional object. .(¶136 reciting “SIG engine 50 may also be configured to generate tool-path instructions and other related information for each layer of digital part 148 and digital support layers 150, and the resulting data may be transmitted to host computer 16 and/or system 10. System 10 may then print 3D part 32 and support structure 34 based on the received data, where the volume of support structure 34 corresponds to the volume of support material calculated by SIG engine 50.”, where system 10 corresponds to a printer.)
However, Nehme does not explicitly disclose wherein a slice of the plurality of slices comprises a plurality of segments, receiving one or more printing parameters that specify a printing configuration for at least one segment of the plurality of segments; and generating printing instructions based at least in part on the one or more printing parameters.
Bachrach teaches “techniques for slicing 3D models for manufacturing” (¶2). Bachrach teaches partitioning the 3D model 502 in Fig. 5A. ¶41 recites “FIG. 5A illustrates the 3D model 402 of FIG. 4 as a triangulated mesh 502, according to one embodiment of the invention. To generate a single slice of the 3D model 402, the slice generating module 122 draws a plane 500 at a pre-determined width interval on the triangulated mesh 502, where the plane 500 is orthogonal to the slice axis 406. Next, the slice generating module 122 identifies a set of triangles in the triangulated mesh 502 that each has a line segment that intersects the drawn plane. . . . Once the set of triangles that intersect the plane is identified, the slice generating module 122 stitches together the line segments of the set of triangles that intersect the plane to form the boundary of the slice.” In other words, Bachrach teaches a slice of said plurality of slices comprises a plurality of segments.
In addition, ¶33 recites “The layout module 128 analyzes each polygonal part included in the slices of the 3D model to determine a layout of the polygonal parts on one or more sheets of a manufacturing material selected by the user (referred to herein as the "manufacturing material").” In other words, Bachrach teaches receiving a user selection of manufacturing material corresponding to one or more parameters that specify a printing configuration.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Nehme) to further partition such that a slice having a plurality of segments, and receive user selection of manufacturing material for printing (taught by Bachrach). The suggestions/motivations would have been to “ what is needed in the art are techniques for designing and building a 3D model that mitigate the cost and delay typically associated with having a third-party manufacturer build the 3D model.” (¶7), and Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the printing instructions are for actuating a print head of the printer or a support in accordance with the printing configuration. (Nehme, ¶36 reciting “X-y-axis gantry 22 is a guide rail assembly that is configured to move print head 24 in a horizontal x-y plane based on instructions provided from controller 30.” ¶37 reciting “Print head 24 is supported by x-y-axis gantry 22 for printing 3D part 32 and support structure 34 on platen 20 in a layer-by-layer manner, based on instructions provided from controller 30.”)
Regarding Claim 3. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising repeating the receiving one or more printing parameters step for at least one other segment of the plurality of segments of the slice. (Bachrach, ¶66 reciting “The layout module 128 performs multiple iteration of the technique described above, and, at each iteration, a different polygonal part of the 3D model is laid on a sheet of manufacturing material. The layout of the polygonal parts on sheets of the manufacturing material is then stored in storage 106.”. The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 4. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the plurality of segments is arranged in an order within a plane such that the receiving one or more printing parameters step is performed sequentially according to the order. (Nehme, ¶54 reciting “Host computer 16 may also generate tool-path instructions and other related information for each layer of digital part 46a and the digital support layers, and the resulting data may be transmitted to system 10 over communication line 44. System 10 may then print 3D part 32 and support structure 34 based on the received data”.)
Regarding Claim 5. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more printing parameters are received through a user interface. (Nehme, ¶33 disclosing user selected manufacturing material. In addition, ¶49 disclosing menu or other user interface being used for user-selectable options. Therefore, Nehme discloses user selected parameters, such as manufacturing material, may be selected from a menu or other interface.)
Regarding Claim 7. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising setting the one or more printing parameters as a stored value without user input. (Bachrach, ¶66 reciting “The layout module 128 performs multiple iteration of the technique described above, and, at each iteration, a different polygonal part of the 3D model is laid on a sheet of manufacturing material. The layout of the polygonal parts on sheets of the manufacturing material is then stored in storage 106.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 10. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the printing configuration comprises voltage, current, pressure, force, feedstock feed rate, length of feedstock to consume, moving speed of a print head of the printer along a deposition path, moving speed of the print head along a non-deposition path, absolute coordinates of the print head, or relative coordinates of the print head. (Nehme, ¶36 reciting “X-y-axis gantry 22 is a guide rail assembly that is configured to move print head 24 in a horizontal x-y plane based on instructions provided from controller 30.”)
Regarding Claim 11. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one segment of the plurality of segments is a polygon, and wherein the polygon is a convex sub-polygon. (Bachrach, ¶41 teaching a set of triangles in the slice, and reciting “FIG. 5A illustrates the 3D model 402 of FIG. 4 as a triangulated mesh 502, according to one embodiment of the invention. To generate a single slice of the 3D model 402, the slice generating module 122 draws a plane 500 at a pre-determined width interval on the triangulated mesh 502, where the plane 500 is orthogonal to the slice axis 406. Next, the slice generating module 122 identifies a set of triangles in the triangulated mesh 502 that each has a line segment that intersects the drawn plane. . . . Once the set of triangles that intersect the plane is identified, the slice generating module 122 stitches together the line segments of the set of triangles that intersect the plane to form the boundary of the slice.” Fig. 5A showing a convex sub-polygon. The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 14. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising, for the slice, determining an order in which to print the plurality of segments. (Nehme, ¶54 reciting “Host computer 16 may also generate tool-path instructions and other related information for each layer of digital part 46a and the digital support layers, and the resulting data may be transmitted to system 10 over communication line 44. System 10 may then print 3D part 32 and support structure 34 based on the received data”.)
Regarding Claim 15. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the determining step comprises:
while one or more layers contain unprinted segments, if no segments are printed within any layers, for a first segment within a first layer, selecting a start point. (Nehme, ¶54 reciting “Host computer 16 may also generate tool-path instructions and other related information for each layer of digital part 46a and the digital support layers, and the resulting data may be transmitted to system 10 over communication line 44. System 10 may then print 3D part 32 and support structure 34 based on the received data”.)
Regarding Claim 18. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses A system for printing a three-dimensional object (¶1 reciting “The present disclosure relates to additive manufacturing processes for printing three-dimensional (3D) parts and support structures.” Figs. 1-3 showing an additive manufacturing system), comprising:
a computer memory comprising a digital model of the three-dimensional object (¶86 reciting “the x-y-z locations of the central coordinate points of cells 114 (or other selected coordinate locations within cells 114) are retained in the memory of computer 12.” Fig. 5 showing a digital model of a 3D object); and one or more computer processors (Fig. 1 showing computer 12, server 14, Host computer 16, and controller 30. ¶33 reciting “System 10 also includes controller 30, which is one or more processor-based controllers configured to control the operation of the components of system 10.”) operatively coupled to the computer memory, wherein the one or more computer processors are individually or collectively programmed to (¶27 reciting “The present disclosure is directed to a computer-implemented program,” ¶135 reciting “SIG engine 50 effectively functions as a high-speed slicing program for orienting and slicing digital part 46 into multiple horizontal layers, and for generating digital support layers 150.”):
partition, using one or more partitioning parameters, the digital model of the three-dimensional object into a plurality of partitions, wherein a partition of the plurality of partitions comprises a plurality of slices, wherein a slice of the plurality of slices comprises a plurality of segments, and wherein the one or more partitioning parameters are selected from the group consisting of: a partition hierarchy, an arrangement of order of the plurality of slices, an arrangement of order of the plurality of segments, a number of slices, a number of segments, a region of the three-dimensional object, a region of at least one of the plurality of partitions, and a region of at least one of the plurality of slices; receive one or more printing parameters that specify a printing configuration for at least one segment of the plurality of segments; and generate printing instructions based at least in part on the one or more printing parameters, which printing instructions are usable by a printer to print the three-dimensional object.
(See Claim 1 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 19. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The system of claim 18, further comprising a print head that is configured to use the printing instructions to print the three-dimensional object. (Nehme, ¶37 reciting “Print head 24 is supported by x-y-axis gantry 22 for printing 3D part 32 and support structure 34 on platen 20 in a layer-by-layer manner, based on instructions provided from controller 30.”)
Regarding Claim 20. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The system of claim 19, wherein the printing instructions are configured to actuate the print head or a support in accordance with the printing configuration. (Nehme, ¶36 reciting “X-y-axis gantry 22 is a guide rail assembly that is configured to move print head 24 in a horizontal x-y plane based on instructions provided from controller 30.” ¶37 reciting “Print head 24 is supported by x-y-axis gantry 22 for printing 3D part 32 and support structure 34 on platen 20 in a layer-by-layer manner, based on instructions provided from controller 30.”)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1), and in view of Bachrach et al. (US 20140253549 A1), and further in view of Schmidt (US 20150151493 A1).
Regarding Claim 6. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 5.
However, Nehme in view of Bachrach does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface is configured to dynamically display a visual representation in response to receiving the one or more parameters.
It is well known in the art to dynamically display a change as a visual feedback in CAD. In addition, Schmidt teaches dynamically display the 3D model in response to receiving the designer’s change, and recites “Based on this visual feedback, the designer may elect to redesign the 3D model 117 to reduce angles or integrate designer-defined support material in discrete locations. . . . Because updates are dynamically reflected in the displayed and highlighted 3D model 117, the designer may efficiently evaluate the impact of various modifications to the 3D model 117 and the 3D printer 150 on the quality of the 3D object.” (¶38).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Nehme in view of Bachrach) to dynamically display the updated 3D model in response to receiving the designer’s change (taught by Schmidt). The suggestions/motivations would have been that “the designer may efficiently evaluate the impact of various modifications to the 3D model 117 and the 3D printer 150 on the quality of the 3D object.” (¶38), and Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1), and in view of Bachrach et al. (US 20140253549 A1), and further in view of Keicher et al. (US 6391251 B1).
Regarding Claim 8. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1.
However, Nehme in view of Bachrach does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more printing parameters comprise trace geometrics; wherein the trace geometrics comprise a trace pattern, a trace spacing or a scaling factor.
It is well known in the art 3D printing parameters comprise a trace pattern. In addition, Keicher teaches “the fabrication of three-dimensional metal parts directly from a computer-aided design (CAD) electronic "solid" model.” (col. 1, ln. 26-28). Figs. 13 and 14 show a trace pattern. Keicher recites “FIG. 13 is a cross-sectional view of the composite, two-materials structure 130 seen along section A--A of FIG. 12. In this structure 130, the outer block 134 is shown as being formed by layered depositions 138 made horizontally. The inner block 132 is seen as formed by layered depositions following the hatching 142 along a 45 degree angle.” (col. 17, ln. 35-40). Further, col. 17 ln. 63-col. 18 ln. 1 recites “Using conventional methods, each of the solid models 141, 146 can be electronically sliced into layers, from which programming the solid object is fabricated. For a typical solid free-form method, a series of contours 140, 143 and hatch-fill lines 138, 142 are used to deposit the structure a layer at a time.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method (taught by Nehme in view of Bachrach) to include a trace pattern in the printer parameters (taught by Keicher). The suggestions/motivations would have been to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9. Nehme in view of Bachrach and Keicher discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the trace pattern is selected from the group consisting of: a line fill, a concentric fill, a hatched fill, and any combinations thereof. (Keicher, Figs. 13-14. col. 17 ln. 63-col. 18 ln. 1 reciting “Using conventional methods, each of the solid models 141, 146 can be electronically sliced into layers, from which programming the solid object is fabricated. For a typical solid free-form method, a series of contours 140, 143 and hatch-fill lines 138, 142 are used to deposit the structure a layer at a time.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 8 rejections.)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1), and in view of Bachrach et al. (US 20140253549 A1), and further in view of Sterenthal et al. (US 20180056595 A1).
Regarding Claim 16. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 14,
However, Nehme in view of Bachrach does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the order includes determining a sequence
which minimizes heat generated by the printer; or
determining a sequence which minimizes a number of lifting operations performed by the printer; or
determining a sequence which minimizes tool change operations; or
determining a sequence which minimizes material change operations; or
selecting one or more parameters, weighting the one or more parameters, calculating a score from the weighted parameters, and selecting a sequence of lifting operations which minimizes the score.
Sterenthal recites “zones may be automatically defined based on either or both thermal analysis or residual stress analysis, and used to optimize or otherwise change (from a default) or set (generally “set”) one or more tool path parameters and thereby the tool path for better results of the three-dimensional object 106. Suitable analyses include real physical simulations of the build process by techniques such as FEA, with or without any support structures added to reduce possible displacements, plastic strain and heat. ” (¶116).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method (taught by Nehme in view of Bachrach) to determine a toolpath that reduces heat (taught by Sterenthal). The suggestions/motivations would have been to “reduce possible displacements, plastic strain and heat. ” (¶116), and Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1), and in view of Bachrach et al. (US 20140253549 A1), and further in view of Potter (US 9764517 B2).
Regarding Claim 17. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising using the printing instructions to print the three-dimensional object; (Nehme, ¶42 reciting “During a printing operation, print head 24 deposits the received part and support materials onto platen 20 to print 3D part 32 and support structure 34 in a layer-by-layer manner based on instructions from controller 30.)
However, Nehme in view of Bachrach does not explicitly disclose wherein the three-dimensional object is printed by (i) bringing a feedstock in contact with a platform or a previously deposited layer of the three-dimensional object, and (ii) directing electrical current to flow from the feedstock and into the platform or the previously deposited layer of the three-dimensional object, or vice versa, to melt at least a portion of the feedstock and deposit the at least the portion of the feedstock adjacent to the platform or the previously deposited layer of the three-dimensional object, thereby forming at least a portion of the three-dimensional object.
The above limitation is a common process used in additive manufacturing. In addition, Potter teaches such a process and recites “Additive Manufacturing (AM) (also known as Additive Layer Manufacture (ALM), 3D printing, etc.) is a process that may be used to produce functional, complex objects, layer by layer, without moulds or dies. Typically, such processes include providing material (e.g. metal or plastic) in the form of a powder or a wire, and, using a powerful heat source such as a laser beam, electron beam or an electric, or plasma welding arc, melting an amount of that material and depositing the melted material (e.g. on a base plate of a work piece). Subsequent layers are then built up upon each preceding layer.” (col. 1, ln. 20-33).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the additive manufacturing process (taught by Potter) in the system (taught by Nehme in view of Bachrach). The suggestions/motivations would have been Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme et al. (US 20130066812 A1), and in view of Bachrach et al. (US 20140253549 A1), and further in view of Mochizuki (WO 0247033 A1).
Regarding Claim 12. Nehme in view of Bachrach discloses The method of claim 1.
However, Nehme in view of Bachrach does not explicitly disclose further comprising, in the partitioning step, partitioning the slice into the plurality of segments, wherein partitioning the slice into the plurality of segments comprises:
iterating, through multiple angular orientations of a segment:
merging one or more holes, if any, into the segment.
Mochizuki teaches “A form analyzing unit (4) receives 2-D outline data stored in an outline data storing unit (3) via an outline data obtaining unit (2), and judges from the received 2-D outline data whether an outline of a character includes an outline of a hole formed in the character. If so, a top/bottom dividing unit (5) divides an area surrounded by the two outlines into convex polygons.” (ABST). Further, Mochizuki recites “When a structure element to be divided includes a hole outline point sequence, the top/bottom dividing unit 5 connects the hole outline point sequence to a character outline point sequence (hereafter, this operation is called "connecting operation") to generate a single outline point sequence. The top/bottom dividing unit 5 performs this operation prior to the division operation. At the same time, the top/bottom dividing unit 5 changes numbers assigned to points in the point sequence to show an arranging order of the points. Based on the stated outline data, the connecting operation connects the character outline to the hole outline so as to produce point sequence coordinate data which allows the character to be traced in a single stroke. The connecting operation may be performed with two connecting methods below.
FIG. 6 shows a state in which the first connecting method is applied to the Chinese character "HI" and point numbers are reassigned to points of a point sequence. The following describes the first connecting method with reference to FIG. 6.” (p. 24, ln. 2-17).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method (taught by Nehme in view of Bachrach) to trace through multiple angular orientations of a segment: merging one or more holes, if any, into the segment as shown in Fig. 6 (taught by Mochizuki). The suggestions/motivations would have been to “produce point sequence coordinate data which allows the character to be traced in a single stroke.” (p. 24, ln. 11-12), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if overcome the double patenting rejections and rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13 is distinguished from the closest known prior art alone or in reasonable combination in consideration of the claim and its base claim(s) as a whole, particularly the limitations similar to “wherein merging one or more holes comprises:
for each hole in the segment:
(a) calculating distances between one or more contour vertices of the segment and the holes within the segment;
(b) selecting a vertex-hole pair with a smallest distance;
(c) inserting a diagonal connecting the vertex-hole pair; and
(d) incorporating a plurality of vertices of the hole into the segment, the vertices of the hole comprising the circumference of the hole and the diagonal.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights