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 41-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,007,746 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 41 of the instant application is not patentably distinct by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,007,746 B2 where the three-dimensional (3D) printing system comprising: a fleet of 3D printers; (one or more 3D printers, Col. 39, lines 28-30) and a scheduling engine, executed by a set of processors, configured to: receive a plurality of print job requests, (col. 39, lines 5-7) each print job request indicating a respective 3D print job of a respective 3D item to be performed by the fleet of 3D printers; for each print job request: determine a set of print job attributes corresponding to the respective 3D print job, the print job attributes including one or more properties of the respective 3D item indicated by the respective print job request, (col. 39, lines 10-12) a print job completion time indicating a first amount of time required to complete the respective 3D print job, and a print job request time indicating a second amount of time until printing of the respective 3D item is to be completed; (col. 39, lines 12-15) determine a respective priority score of the respective print job based on the set of print job attributes; (col. 39, lines 15-18) maintain a 3D print job queue based on the respective priority score of the respective print job, wherein the 3D print job queue indicates an order to process the respective print job request with respect other print job requests; and selectively assign the respective print job request to the fleet of 3D printers according to the 3D print job queue. (col. 39, lines 23-25)
Claim 42-52 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 2-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,007,746 B2.
Claim 53 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 16 U.S. Patent No. 12,007,746 B2. a method for controlling a fleet of 3D printers comprising: receiving, by a processing system having one or more processors, (one or more 3D printers, Col. 40, line 47) a plurality of print job requests, each print job request indicating a respective 3D print job of a respective 3D item to be performed by the fleet of 3D printers; (col. 40, lines 20-25) for each print job request: determining, by the processing system, a set of print job attributes corresponding to the respective 3D print job, the print job attributes including one or more properties of the respective 3D item indicated by the print job request, (col. 40, lines 25-30) a print job completion time indicating a first amount of time required to complete the 3D print job, and a print job request time indicating a second amount of time until printing of the respective 3D item is to be completed; (col. 40, lines 30-35) determining, by the processing system, a respective priority score of the respective print job based on the one or more properties of the respective 3D item, the print job completion time, and the print job request time; maintaining, by the processing system, a 3D print job queue based on the respective priority score of the respective print job, (col. 40, lines 35-40) wherein the 3D print job queue indicates an order to process the print job request with respect to other print job requests; and selectively assigning, by the processing system, the respective print job to the fleet of 3D printers according to the 3D print job queue. (col. 40, lines 40-45).
Claims 54-59 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 17-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,007,746 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 41-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “determine a respective priority score” and “maintain a 3D print job queue” which are abstract ideas that could be performed in the human mind. Because the claims as analyzed above, both in the limitations separately and in the claims taken as a whole, are directed to mathematical concepts or mental processes, the claims recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea in the first prong of revised Step 2A of the Guidance. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2), (a)(2)(I)(A).
Having determined that the claims recite abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and mental processes, we next look to determine whether the claims recite “additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.04(d). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite a step of printing or converting the “priority score” or “print job queue” into a tangible result.
Because we determine that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and they do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, we look to whether each claim provides an inventive concept, i.e., adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because print job queues are a routine and conventional concept in the 3D printing area.
Regarding claims 41-59, each claim is rejected for the above reasons. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite a step of printing or converting the “priority score” or “print job queue” into a tangible result in any of the claims.
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) 41, 42, 49-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschanz et al. (US 2013/0290220 A1) in view of Mok et al. (US 2002/0147521 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Tschanz meets the claimed three-dimensional (3D) printing system (3D printer 104, Fig. 1) comprising: and a scheduling engine, (storage 108, Fig. 1) executed by a set of processors, (Processor 106, Fig. 1) configured to: receive a plurality of print job requests, (the printer 104 is in communication with the computer system 102 and is configured to print [0034]) each print job request indicating a respective 3D print job of a respective 3D item to be performed by the fleet of 3D printers; (the computer system may receive or generate a queue of items for printing [0025]) for each print job request: determine a set of print job attributes corresponding to the respective 3D print job, a print job completion time indicating a first amount of time required to complete the respective 3D print job (printing time [0026]) the print job attributes including one or more properties of the respective 3D item (e.g., cost for printing the beds based on a height of the figurines in the print bed, [0026]) indicated by the respective print job request, determine a respective priority score of the respective print job based on the set of print job attributes; (given an order queue line and a number of configurations, a particular configuration is selected which minimizes the cost function based on queue delays, printing time and total number of figurines in a configuration [0026]) maintain a 3D print job queue based on the respective priority score of the respective print job, (scoring which minimizes the cost function, see [0026]) wherein the 3D print job queue indicates an order to process the respective print job request with respect other print job requests; (queue of times for printing [0025])
Tschanz does not teach a fleet of 3D printers and selectively assign the respective print job request to the fleet of 3D printers according to the 3D print job queue.
Mok teaches a fleet of 3D printers; Mok prototype production system, comprising: a plurality of machining apparatuses [0007] including layered manufacturing (an additive process) and material removal (a subtractive process), [0081]. and selectively assign the respective print job request to the fleet of 3D printers according to the 3D print job queue. (Each sub-job is assigned to a dedicated system and allocated a time based upon the schedule of the dedicated system, [0131], Fig. 10 depicts Extrusion System 1 and Extrusion System 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the printing queue of Tschanz with a plurality of additive manufacturing apparatuses as taught by Mok because it allows for optimizing the utility of each dedicated system at every new job received by the particular printing system and updating the customer with the current progress, see [0087].
Tschanz does not teach determine a print job request time indicating a second amount of time until printing of the respective 3D item is to be completed.
Mok teaches determine a print job request time indicating a second amount of time until printing of the respective 3D item is to be completed. (Mok teaches transferring processed data to the queue of a particular RP system in a RP center, with consideration of the availability of required dedicated systems, the queuing time against a requested deadline, [0087]. It may be necessary to re-select a central control system and sequentially a local RP data processing system if all RP systems in a RP factory fail to meet the delivery deadline [0159]. Examiner notes the “deadline” meets the claimed “time required to complete the job”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the first time once printing begins and second time (deadline) when determining the queue order because it allows for optimizing the utility of each dedicated system at every new job received by the particular printing system and updating the customer with the current progress, see [0087].
Regarding claim 42, Tschanz as modified meets the claimed 3D printing system of claim 41, wherein the scheduling engine is configured to determine the respective priority score of the respective print job based on a set of hierarchical scoring rules and the print job attributes of the respective print jobs. (Tschanz teaches given an order queue line and a number of configurations, a particular configuration is selected which minimizes the cost function based on queue delays, printing time and total number of figurines in a configuration [0026]).
Regarding claim 49, Tschanz as modified meets the claimed 3D printing system of claim 41, wherein the print job attributes of the requested print job include a price attribute indicating a price paid to have the item 3D printed. (Tschanz teaches scoring may take into account a cost of printing figurines using a particular print bed [0026], and “dollar value” in claim 12 of the PG PUB).
Regarding claim 50, Tschanz as modified meets the claimed 3D printing system of claim 41, wherein the fleet of 3D printers print industrial items. (Examiner notes that the instant claims and specification do not define “industrial”. Furthermore, the product is considered the intended use of the claimed 3D printing apparatus, see MPEP 2114. Tschanz teaches a 3D printer that may include selective laser sintering, direct metal laser sintering, fused deposition modeling, [0034], and is capable of printing industrial and non-industrial products).
Regarding claim 51, Tschanz as modified meets the claimed 3D printing system of claim 41, wherein the fleet of 3D printers print food items. (Examiner notes that the product is considered the intended use of the claimed 3D printing apparatus, see MPEP 2114. Tschanz teaches a 3D printer that may include selective laser sintering, direct metal laser sintering, fused deposition modeling, [0034], and is capable of printing food products).
Regarding claim 52, Tschanz as modified meets the claimed 3D printing system of claim 41, wherein the fleet of 3D printers print biomedical items. (Examiner notes that the product is considered the intended use of the claimed 3D printing apparatus, see MPEP 2114. Tschanz teaches a 3D printer that may include selective laser sintering, direct metal laser sintering, fused deposition modeling, [0034], and is capable of printing biomedical products).
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschanz et al. (US 2013/0290220 A1) in view of Mok et al. (US 2002/0147521 A1) and in further view of Nevins (US 9,533,526 B1).
Regarding claims 48, Tschanz does not disclose wherein the print job attributes of the requested print job include a loyalty attribute corresponding to a requestor of the print job.
Nevins meets the claimed wherein the print job attributes of the requested print job include a loyalty attribute corresponding to a requestor of the print job. (Nevins teaches additive manufacturing system 100 at a retail location where the cost of the headband 4110 can optionally depend upon the amount whether the customer is a member of a selected loyalty or rewards program, and/or other variables, Col. 44, lines 6-35. Tschanz teaches customer information is considered when determining which items form the queue to print, see [0050], to meeting or exceeding customer's expectations as to timeliness, see [0030]. Thus the combination of Tschanz and Nevins meets the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the loyalty or rewards information of Nevins with the 3D printing queue of Tschanz because it improves customer experiences to attract new and repeat customers, see Col. 18, lines 63-67.
Claim(s) 53, 54, 57 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschanz et al. (US 2013/0290220 A1) in view of Mok et al. (US 2002/0147521 A1).
Regarding claim 53, Tschanz meets the claimed method for controlling a fleet of 3D printers (the printer 104 is in communication with the computer system 102 and is configured to print [0034]) comprising: receiving, by a processing system having one or more processors, (Processor 106, Fig. 1) a plurality of print job requests, each print job request indicating a respective 3D print job of a respective 3D item to be performed (the computer system may receive or generate a queue of items for printing [0025]) for each print job request: determining, by the processing system, a set of print job attributes corresponding to the respective 3D print job, (e.g., cost for printing the beds based on a height of the figurines in the print bed, [0026]) the print job attributes including one or more properties of the respective 3D item indicated by the print job request, a print job completion time indicating a first amount of time required to complete the 3D print job, (printing time [0026])
determining, by the processing system, a respective priority score of the respective print job based on the one or more properties of the respective 3D item, the print job completion time, and the print job request time; (given an order queue line and a number of configurations, a particular configuration is selected which minimizes the cost function based on queue delays, printing time and total number of figurines in a configuration [0026])
maintaining, by the processing system, a 3D print job queue based on the respective priority score of the respective print job, (scoring which minimizes the cost function, see [0026]) wherein the 3D print job queue indicates an order to process the print job request with respect to other print job requests; and selectively assigning, by the processing system. (queue of times for printing [0025]).
Tschanz does not teach a fleet of 3D printers and selectively assign the respective print job request to the fleet of 3D printers according to the 3D print job queue.
Mok teaches a fleet of 3D printers; Mok prototype production system, comprising: a plurality of machining apparatuses [0007] including layered manufacturing (an additive process) and material removal (a subtractive process), [0081]. and selectively assign the respective print job request to the fleet of 3D printers according to the 3D print job queue. (Each sub-job is assigned to a dedicated system and allocated a time based upon the schedule of the dedicated system, [0131], Fig. 10 depicts Extrusion System 1 and Extrusion System 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the printing queue of Tschanz with a plurality of additive manufacturing apparatuses as taught by Mok because it allows for optimizing the utility of each dedicated system at every new job received by the particular printing system and updating the customer with the current progress, see [0087].
Tschanz does not teach determine a print job request time indicating a second amount of time until printing of the respective 3D item is to be completed.
Mok teaches determine a print job request time indicating a second amount of time until printing of the respective 3D item is to be completed. (Mok teaches transferring processed data to the queue of a particular RP system in a RP center, with consideration of the availability of required dedicated systems, the queuing time against a requested deadline, [0087]. It may be necessary to re-select a central control system and sequentially a local RP data processing system if all RP systems in a RP factory fail to meet the delivery deadline [0159]. Examiner notes the “deadline” meets the claimed “time required to complete the job”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the first time once printing begins and second time (deadline) when determining the queue order because it allows for optimizing the utility of each dedicated system at every new job received by the particular printing system and updating the customer with the current progress, see [0087].
Regarding claim 54, Tschanz as modified meets the claimed method of claim 53, wherein the determining the respective priority score of the respective print job is based on a set of hierarchical scoring rules and the print job attributes of the respective print jobs. (Tschanz teaches given an order queue line and a number of configurations, a particular configuration is selected which minimizes the cost function based on queue delays, printing time and total number of figurines in a configuration [0026]).
Regarding claim 57, Tschanz as modified meets the claimed method of claim 53, wherein the respective print job request time of the respective print job is determined based on a requested pickup time received in the respective print job request. (Tschanz teaches a customer may be provided with a time estimate for when the item will be ready, [0051]. Tschanz teaches customer information is considered when determining which items form the queue to print, see [0050], to meeting or exceeding customer's expectations as to timeliness, see [0030]. Thus, the teaching of Tschanz to measure how long a customer has been waiting renders obvious “pickup time”).
Regarding claim 58, Tschanz as modified meets the claimed method of claim 53, wherein the respective print job completion time of the respective print job request is determined by: retrieving a design record from a design library (binary representation 306 defines an outer perimeter of the figurine for the view/angle at which the image was captured, [0045], Fig. 3) corresponding to the respective 3D item to be printed; determining a print time (printing time [0026]) of the respective 3D item to be 3D printed from the design record; and determining the first amount of time based on the print time. (Tschanz teaches speed bonus for batches that include smaller items and which will take less time to print [0052], which means that the algorithm calculates the time for the whole batch).
Claim(s) 43 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschanz et al. (US 2013/0290220 A1) in view of Mok et al. (US 2002/0147521 A1) and in further view of Schwartz (US 2018/0120817 A1).
Regarding claims 43 and 55, Tschanz as modified does not teach wherein the scheduling engine is configured to determine the priority score of the respective print job based on a machine-learned scoring model and the respective print job attributes of the respective print job, wherein the machine- learned scoring model is trained on previously performed print jobs.
Schwartz teaches wherein the scheduling engine is configured to determine the priority score of the respective print job based on a machine-learned scoring model and the respective print job attributes of the respective print job, wherein the machine- learned scoring model is trained on previously performed print jobs. (The scoring may be based on weights determined by a second machine learning model (e.g., statistical, decision tree, neural network, or a combination thereof). For example, the score for a candidate orientation may represent the “cost” or difficulty of printing the part using the candidate orientation, see [0084]. Training data may also be collected from previous prints based on the orientations before and after operator input [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the machine learning model of Schwartz with the scoring algorithm for 3D printing of Tschanz because it improves time and material efficiency in 3D printing, see [0005]-[0006].
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschanz et al. (US 2013/0290220 A1) in view of Mok et al. (US 2002/0147521 A1) in further view of Pettis (US 2017/0031635 A1).
Regarding claim 56, Tschanz does not meet the claimed wherein the respective print job request time of the respective 3D print job is determined based on a distance between a current location of a requestor of the 3D print job from a physical location of the fleet of 3D printers.
Pettis meets the claimed wherein the respective print job request time of the respective 3D print job is determined based on a distance between a current location of a requestor of the 3D print job from a physical location of the fleet of 3D printers. (Pettis teaches a 3D printing system including a mobile device 312 may include location awareness technology such as Global Positioning System (“GPS”), and the print server may determine a location of the mobile device 312 initiating the print job and locate a closest printer for fabrication of the object, see [0059]. Thus, the print server of Pettis must determine the distance of the requestor, which in combination with Tschanz teaches the expected time for a requestor, meets the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to measure the distance from a requestor as taught by Pettis with the 3D printing algorithm of Tschanz because it improves the allocation of resources for remote users, see [0004].
Claim(s) 47 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschanz et al. (US 2013/0290220 A1) in view of Mok et al. (US 2002/0147521 A1) in further view of Gain (US 2016/0361878).
Regarding claim 47, Tschanz does not explicitly teach wherein the respective print job completion time of the respective print job is further based on a pre-processing amount of time to pre-process the respective print job and a post-processing amount of time to post-process the respective 3D item after the respective 3D item has been printed.
Gain meets the claimed wherein the respective print job completion time of the respective print job is further based on a pre-processing amount of time to pre-process the respective print job and a post-processing amount of time to post-process the respective 3D item after the respective 3D item has been printed. (Gain teaches a 3D printing algorithm where the time includes the pre and post processing and time required to make the part 100, see [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the pre and post processing time in the time to make the part as taught by Gain with the 3D printing algorithm of Tschanz so the user can be better informed of time required.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Esbroeck (US 2020/0122388 A1) teaches [0031] By automating the design and preprocessing steps (i.e. the above processes), the fast turnaround time to delivery of printable data is achieved based on the input using 3D scan data of the patients' anatomy. The uploading process can be done by the same person or artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744