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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application U.S. Provisional App# 63523691 (filed 10/07/2013) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the quality of the lines and characters. 37 CFR 1.84(l) requires that all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
The drawings are objected to because the text is on shaded portions of the drawing, proving difficult to read. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires that text should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct (see Fig. 2-4)
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.
Instant Application
Patent No. US11926105B2
1. A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising:
generating, using at least one processor, a 3D model representing a support structure for the object, said generating comprising:
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of support pillars, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches;
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of contact structures that couple support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object; and
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss; and
generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure.
1. A method of generating a support structure for an object, the object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising:
generating, using at least one processor, a 3D model representing the support structure for the object, wherein the 3D model representing the support structure comprises:
a plurality of support pillars;
a plurality of contact structures coupling support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object, wherein an orientation of each contact structure of the plurality of contact structures is determined based on a direction normal to the surface of the object at a point of contact between the contact structure and the object; and
a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss,
wherein the support structure exhibits an untrussed region proximate to the object, which includes the plurality of contact structures and at least part of each of the plurality of support pillars, and which does not include any of the plurality of trusses,
wherein generating the 3D model representing the support structure for the object comprises, for each truss of the plurality of trusses, determining placement of the truss while only permitting the truss to couple to support pillars at or beyond an untrussed length, the untrussed length being a threshold distance from the object measured along the support pillars to which the truss is coupled, and
wherein the placement of each of the plurality of trusses is determined based on the same untrussed length;
generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure;
executing the instructions by the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure; and
removing the fabricated support structure from the fabricated object.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing the instructions to the additive fabrication device.
1. generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure;
executing the instructions by the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure; and
15. An additive fabrication device configured to fabricate an object and a support structure for the object, the additive fabrication device comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, generate a 3D model representing a support structure for the object, said generating comprising: generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of support pillars, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches;
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of contact structures that couple support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object; and
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss; and
a fabrication mechanism configured to access a 3D model representing the object and access the 3D model representing the support structure, and to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure.
1. A method of generating a support structure for an object, the object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising:
generating, using at least one processor, a 3D model representing the support structure for the object, wherein the 3D model representing the support structure comprises:
a plurality of support pillars;
a plurality of contact structures coupling support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object, wherein an orientation of each contact structure of the plurality of contact structures is determined based on a direction normal to the surface of the object at a point of contact between the contact structure and the object; and
a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss,
wherein the support structure exhibits an untrussed region proximate to the object, which includes the plurality of contact structures and at least part of each of the plurality of support pillars, and which does not include any of the plurality of trusses,
wherein generating the 3D model representing the support structure for the object comprises, for each truss of the plurality of trusses, determining placement of the truss while only permitting the truss to couple to support pillars at or beyond an untrussed length, the untrussed length being a threshold distance from the object measured along the support pillars to which the truss is coupled, and
wherein the placement of each of the plurality of trusses is determined based on the same untrussed length;
generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure;
executing the instructions by the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure; and
removing the fabricated support structure from the fabricated object.
20. At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising:
generating, using at least one processor, a 3D model representing a support structure for the object, said generating comprising:
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of support pillars, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches;
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of contact structures that couple support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object; and
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss; and
generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure.
1. A method of generating a support structure for an object, the object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising:
generating, using at least one processor, a 3D model representing the support structure for the object, wherein the 3D model representing the support structure comprises:
a plurality of support pillars;
a plurality of contact structures coupling support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object, wherein an orientation of each contact structure of the plurality of contact structures is determined based on a direction normal to the surface of the object at a point of contact between the contact structure and the object; and
a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss,
wherein the support structure exhibits an untrussed region proximate to the object, which includes the plurality of contact structures and at least part of each of the plurality of support pillars, and which does not include any of the plurality of trusses,
wherein generating the 3D model representing the support structure for the object comprises, for each truss of the plurality of trusses, determining placement of the truss while only permitting the truss to couple to support pillars at or beyond an untrussed length, the untrussed length being a threshold distance from the object measured along the support pillars to which the truss is coupled, and
wherein the placement of each of the plurality of trusses is determined based on the same untrussed length;
generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure;
executing the instructions by the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure; and
removing the fabricated support structure from the fabricated object.
Claim 1-6, 9-15 and 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11926105B2 in view of Kohler (US20200086580A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the Patent. The difference between claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patent is, the instant application recites an additional limitation, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches. Kohler in in ¶0032 teaches a support member with conduction gate. Also teaches, a conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202. Kohler is an art in the area of interest as it relates to additive manufacturing. Claim 1 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 2 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, wherein each notch of the one or more notches has a smaller thickness than regions of the first support pillar that are adjacent to the notch. Claim 2 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein each notch of the one or more notches has a smaller thickness than regions of the first support pillar that are adjacent to the notch. Kohler in in ¶0032 teaches, support members 202 may include a plurality of conduction gates 300. A conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202. Claim 2 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 3 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 further recites, wherein the first support pillar is generated to be cylindrical with a first diameter, and wherein the one or more notches are generated to be regions of the first support pillar that are narrower than the first diameter. Claim 3 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the first support pillar is generated to be cylindrical with a first diameter, and wherein the one or more notches are generated to be regions of the first support pillar that are narrower than the first diameter. Kohler in ¶0047 and Fig. 5F teaches, support pillar 202 with first diameter and narrower conduction region with narrower diameter. Claim 3 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 4 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are generated as a cylinder with the first diameter that has a portion of the cylinder removed. Claim 4 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the one or more notches are generated as a cylinder with the first diameter that has a portion of the cylinder removed. Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5A-H teaches conduction region as cylinder with a portion of the diameter from the support structure removed. Claim 4 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 5 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 further recites, wherein the portion of the cylinder that is removed is V-shaped, U-shaped, or rectangular. Claim 5 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the portion of the cylinder that is removed is V-shaped, U-shaped, or rectangular. Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5A-H As shown in FIG. 5A, a conduction gate 300 may have a rectangular side profile. Claim 5 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 6 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 6 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are generated to include two truncated or untruncated cones with a circular base having the first diameter. Claim 6 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the one or more notches are generated to include two truncated or untruncated cones with a circular base having the first diameter. Kohler in ¶0046 and Fig. 5B teaches, As shown in FIG. 5B, a conduction gate 300 may have a frustoconical side profile. Claim 6 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 9 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 9 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are defined in the 3D model representing the support structure to have a height that is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm. Claim 9 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the one or more notches are defined in the 3D model representing the support structure to have a height that is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm. Kohler in ¶0032 teaches, A conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202. ¶0044 teaches, a support member 202 may have a conduction gate 300 ranging from 10 to 6,000 micrometers long. Claim 9 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 10 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 10 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are defined in the 3D model representing the support structure to have a width that is between 50% and 80% of a width of the first support pillar. Claim 10 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the one or more notches are defined in the 3D model representing the support structure to have a width that is between 50% and 80% of a width of the first support pillar. Kohler in ¶0043, ¶0045 and Fig. 5A-H teaches various combination of support pillar and conduction gate width which includes a conduction gate that is between 50%-80% of the width of the support pillar. Claim 10 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 11 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 11 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are spaced evenly along the length of the first support pillar. Claim 11 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the one or more notches are spaced evenly along the length of the first support pillar. Kohler in ¶
0039 teaches, The distribution of the conduction gates 300 along the vertical axis of the respective support members 202 of the support structure 118 may follow an ordered pattern. Claim 11 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 12 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 12 further recites, wherein the notches are placed based on a stress analysis of the support structure. Claim 12 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the notches are placed based on a stress analysis of the support structure. Kohler in ¶0021 teaches, In some embodiments, the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest. Claim 12 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 13 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 13 further recites, wherein the plurality of support pillars are cylindrical, prismatic, or triangular in shape. Claim 13 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the plurality of support pillars are cylindrical, prismatic, or triangular in shape. Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5F and 5H teaches the support members can be cylindrical shape. Claim 13 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because using support pillars of various shapes is known in the art as evident by Kohler. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14 of the instant application depends on claim 1 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 14 further recites, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing the instructions to the additive fabrication device. Patent claim 1 recites, generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure; executing the instructions by the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure. It is inherent in the patent claim that the instruction is being provided to the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object. Therefore, the limitations of the claim 1 of the patent anticipates the claim 14 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the Patent. The difference between claim 15 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patent is, the instant application recites an additional limitation, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches. Kohler in in ¶0032 teaches a support member with conduction gate. Also teaches, a conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202. Kohler is an art in the area of interest as it relates to additive manufacturing. Claim 15 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 17 of the instant application depends on claim 15 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 15. Claim 17 further recites, wherein the portion of the cylinder that is removed is V-shaped, U-shaped, or rectangular. Claim 17 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the portion of the cylinder that is removed is V-shaped, U-shaped, or rectangular. Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5A-H As shown in FIG. 5A, a conduction gate 300 may have a rectangular side profile. Claim 17 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 18 of the instant application depends on claim 15 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 15. Claim 18 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are spaced evenly along the length of the first support pillar. Claim 18 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the one or more notches are spaced evenly along the length of the first support pillar. Kohler in ¶
0039 teaches, The distribution of the conduction gates 300 along the vertical axis of the respective support members 202 of the support structure 118 may follow an ordered pattern. Claim 18 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 19 of the instant application depends on claim 15 and therefore includes the limitations of claim 15. Claim 19 further recites, wherein the plurality of support pillars are cylindrical, prismatic, or triangular in shape. Claim 19 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the patent, aside from the additional limitation wherein the plurality of support pillars are cylindrical, prismatic, or triangular in shape. Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5F and 5H teaches the support members can be cylindrical shape. Claim 19 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because using support pillars of various shapes is known in the art as evident by Kohler. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the Patent. The difference between claim 20 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patent is, the instant application recites an additional limitation, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches. Kohler in in ¶0032 teaches a support member with conduction gate. Also teaches, a conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202. Kohler is an art in the area of interest as it relates to additive manufacturing. Claim 20 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Kohler because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11926105B2 in view of Kohler (US20200086580A1) and further in view of Whelan (US20210080929A1).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of the instant application recites similar limitation as claim 1 of the Patent. The difference between claim 8 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patent modified in view of Kohler is, the instant application recites an additional limitation, wherein the plurality of trusses connecting the support pillars have a connecting point with a reduced thickness compared to a middle section of the truss. Whelan in ¶0115 teaches, truss 1404 is wider at its base than truss 1403, and tapers from the bottom of the truss to the top where it meets support pillar 1402. Whelan is an art in the area of interest as it relates to additive fabrication (see ¶0026). Claim 8 of the instant application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 of the patent in view of Kohler and Whelan and therefore is not patentably distinct. One would have been motivated to further modify the claim 1 of the instant application in view of Whelan doing so would allow the trusses to be formed from less material and thereby providing necessary mechanical support to the support structure while utilizing less material for fabrication, as taught by Whelan in ¶0115.
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.
Claim 1-14 and 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method. The claim(s) recite(s) generating, using at least one processor, a 3D model representing a support structure for the object, said generating comprising: generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of support pillars, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches; generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of contact structures that couple support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object; and generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim recites generating a plurality of support pillars, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches. Without any specific limitation narrowing the generation process of the support pillar, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches. Similarly, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating the claimed 3D model representing a support structure, contact structure and the claimed plurality of trusses. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations directed to A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication and generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure. With regards to A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication , this limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of additive fabrication. Therefore, this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). With regards to generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure, this limitation in is merely directed to generating instruction for an additive fabrication device. Merely generating an instruction using a computer implemented method doesn’t integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it".
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites additional limitations directed to A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication and generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure. With regards to A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication , this limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of additive fabrication. Therefore, this limitation fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). With regards to generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure, this limitation in is merely directed to generating instruction for an additive fabrication device. Merely generating an instruction using a computer implemented method fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it".
The last limitation of the claim is directed to only generating the instruction, it doesn’t recite a specific method step directed to the additive fabrication device executing the operation. Examiner would like to suggest amending the claim to recite a step of implementing the generated instruction using the additive fabrication device. Such amendment may overcome the current rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 2 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 2 further recites, wherein each notch of the one or more notches has a smaller thickness than regions of the first support pillar that are adjacent to the notch. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches where each notch has a smaller thickness than regions of the first support pillar that are adjacent to the notch. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 3 further recites, wherein the first support pillar is generated to be cylindrical with a first diameter, and wherein the one or more notches are generated to be regions of the first support pillar that are narrower than the first diameter. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches where support pillar is generated to be cylindrical with a first diameter, and the one or more notches are generated to be regions of the first support pillar that are narrower than the first diameter. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 4 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 4 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are generated as a cylinder with the first diameter that has a portion of the cylinder removed. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches where the notches are generated as a cylinder with the first diameter that has a portion of the cylinder removed. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 5 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 5 further recites, wherein the portion of the cylinder that is removed is V-shaped, U-shaped, or rectangular. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches where the portion of the cylinder that is removed is V-shaped, U-shaped, or rectangular. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 6 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are generated to include two truncated or untruncated cones with a circular base having the first diameter.. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches that are generated to include two truncated or untruncated cones with a circular base having the first diameter, or rectangular. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 7 further recites, prior to or while generating the support structure, performing a simulated stress analysis of the support structure in combination with the object, and generate the one or more notches at locations on the first support pillar where the simulated stress analysis indicates a stress value is greater than a predetermined threshold value. With regards to performing a simulated stress analysis of the support structure in combination with the object, this limitation is directed to a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performed the simulation, which is equivalent to the words "apply it". Therefore, this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to generate the one or more notches at locations on the first support pillar where the simulated stress analysis indicates a stress value is greater than a predetermined threshold value, this limitation is directed to an abstract idea as human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating notches at location where a simulated stress analysis indicates a stress value is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
Claim 8 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 8 further recites, wherein the plurality of trusses connecting the support pillars have a connecting point with a reduced thickness compared to a middle section of the truss. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating plurality of trusses. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with trusses where the trusses have a connecting point with a reduced thickness compared to a middle section of the truss. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 9 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are defined in the 3D model representing the support structure to have a height that is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm.. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches that have a height that is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 10 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are defined in the 3D model representing the support structure to have a width that is between 50% and 80% of a width of the first support pillar. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches that have a width that is between 50% and 80% of a width of the first support pillar. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 11 further recites, wherein the one or more notches are spaced evenly along the length of the first support pillar. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches that are spaced evenly along the length of the first support pillar. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 12 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 12 further recites, wherein the notches are placed based on a stress analysis of the support structure. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars with notches that are placed based on a stress analysis of the support structure. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 13 further recites, wherein the plurality of support pillars are cylindrical, prismatic, or triangular in shape. This limitation as an extension of the abstract idea of generating support pillars with notches. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support pillars that are cylindrical, prismatic, or triangular in shape. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 14 is a dependent claim and as such it includes the abstract idea recited in the parent claim. Claim 14 further recites, further comprising providing the instructions to the additive fabrication device. This limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data transmission and is an insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). This element is recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found transmitting data (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
Claim 20 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system/machine. Claim 20 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 20 recites additional limitation directed to “At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication,”. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 21 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method. The claim(s) recite(s) generating, using at least one processor, an initial support structure for the object, the initial support structure comprising a plurality of support pillars, a plurality of contact structures coupling the plurality of support pillars to the object, and a plurality of trusses that couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim recites an initial support structure for the object, the initial support structure comprising a plurality of support pillars, a plurality of contact structures coupling the plurality of support pillars to the object, and a plurality of trusses that couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss. Without any specific limitation narrowing the generation process of the support structure, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of designing support with the claimed characteristics. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations directed to
A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising:
performing a topology optimization process on the initial support structure, wherein the topology optimization process comprises using physical simulation to identify portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses that can be removed without adversely impacting printability object during additive fabrication;
removing the identified portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses based on the results of the topology optimization process; and
providing instructions to an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the optimized support structure.
With regards to A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, this limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of additive fabrication. Therefore, this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). With regards to performing a topology optimization process on the initial support structure, wherein the topology optimization process comprises using physical simulation to identify portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses that can be removed without adversely impacting printability object during additive fabrication; removing the identified portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses based on the results of the topology optimization process, these limitation is directed to a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performs the topology optimization or removes the identified portion of the support pillar, aside from reciting that these functions are executed. This amounts to reciting the words "apply it". Therefore, this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to, providing instructions to an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the optimized support structure, This limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data transmission and is an insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regards to A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, this limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of additive fabrication. Therefore, this limitation fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception(see MPEP 2106.05(h)). With regards to performing a topology optimization process on the initial support structure, wherein the topology optimization process comprises using physical simulation to identify portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses that can be removed without adversely impacting printability object during additive fabrication; removing the identified portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses based on the results of the topology optimization process, these limitation is directed to a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performs the topology optimization or removes the identified portion of the support pillar, aside from reciting that these functions are executed. This amounts to reciting the words "apply it". Therefore, this limitation fails to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to, providing instructions to an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the optimized support structure, This limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data transmission and is an insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. This element is recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found transmitting data (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The last limitation of the claim is directed to only providing the instruction, it doesn’t recite a specific method step directed to the additive fabrication device executing the operation. Examiner would like to suggest amending the claim to recite a step of implementing the generated instruction using the additive fabrication device. Such amendment may overcome the current rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantzdale (US20200307108A1) in view of Kohler (US20200086580A1).
Regarding Claim 1
A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising: (¶0080 teaches, a computer system 910 may execute software that generates instructions for fabricating a part using additive fabrication device, such as method 500 shown in FIG. 5. ¶0085 teaches computer readable media storing the instructions)
generating, using at least one processor, a 3D model representing a support structure for the object, said generating comprising: (¶0045 teaches, generating a support structure comprising support pillar structures and trusses between the pillar structures along with contact structures that connects each support pillars to a respective contact point)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of support pillars, (¶0045 teaches generating support pillar structures)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of contact structures that couple support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object; and (¶0045 teaches contact structures that connects each support pillars to a respective contact point)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss; and (¶0045 teaches, generating trusses between the pillar structures. ¶0033 and Fig. 3 teaches, some of the support pillars 302 are connected to one or more of the other support pillars via one or more trusses 305)
generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure. (¶0057 teaches, In act 510, the computing device performing method 500 generates instructions for an additive fabrication device to fabricate the part and the generated support structure, which includes the generated support pillars, contact structures and trusses generated and/or tuned in acts 506 and 508.)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of support pillars, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches; (¶0045 teaches generating support pillars with contact structure. ¶0058 teaches contact structure referred to herein as a “hair support,” and which may be generated as part of a contact structure in, for example, act 506 of FIG. 5. ¶0061 teaches, In some embodiments, a hair support may be configured to be fabricated thinner than a layer of material in the part)
Frantzdale doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches; (Frantzdale doesn’t teach support pillars includes one or more notches. Kohler in ¶0032 teaches a support member with conduction gate. Also teaches, a conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202)
Kohler is an art in the area of interest as it relates to additive manufacturing (see Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the support pillar of Frantzdale in view of Kohler to include notches in the support pillars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Kohler with Frantzdale. One would have been motivated to do so because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Regarding Claim 2,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each notch of the one or more notches has a smaller thickness than regions of the first support pillar that are adjacent to the notch. (Kohler in ¶0032 teaches, Still referring to FIGS. 3A-3H, the array of support members 202 may include a plurality of conduction gates 300. A conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202)
Regarding Claim 3,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first support pillar is generated to be cylindrical with a first diameter, and wherein the one or more notches are generated to be regions of the first support pillar that are narrower than the first diameter. (Kohler in ¶0047 and Fig. 5F teaches, support pillar 202 with first diameter and narrower conduction region with narrower diameter)
Regarding Claim 4,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the one or more notches are generated as a cylinder with the first diameter that has a portion of the cylinder removed. (Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5A-H teaches conduction region as cylinder with a portion of the diameter from the support structure removed)
Regarding Claim 5,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the portion of the cylinder that is removed is V-shaped, U-shaped, or rectangular. (Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5A-H As shown in FIG. 5A, a conduction gate 300 may have a rectangular side profile)
Regarding Claim 6,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the one or more notches are generated to include two truncated or untruncated cones with a circular base having the first diameter. (Kohler in ¶0046 and Fig. 5B teaches, As shown in FIG. 5B, a conduction gate 300 may have a frustoconical side profile)
Regarding Claim 9,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more notches are defined in the 3D model representing the support structure to have a height that is between 0.5 mm and 2 mm. (Kohler in ¶0032 teaches, A conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202. ¶0044 teaches, a support member 202 may have a conduction gate 300 ranging from 10 to 6,000 micrometers long)
Regarding Claim 10,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more notches are defined in the 3D model representing the support structure to have a width that is between 50% and 80% of a width of the first support pillar. (Kohler in ¶0043, ¶0045 and Fig. 5A-H teaches various combination of support pillar and conduction gate width which includes a conduction gate that is between 50%-80% of the width of the support pillar)
Regarding Claim 11,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more notches are spaced evenly along the length of the first support pillar. (Kohler in ¶
0039 teaches, The distribution of the conduction gates 300 along the vertical axis of the respective support members 202 of the support structure 118 may follow an ordered pattern,
Regarding Claim 12,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the notches are placed based on a stress analysis of the support structure. (Kohler in ¶0021 teaches, In some embodiments, the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest)
Regarding Claim 13,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of support pillars are cylindrical, prismatic, or triangular in shape. (Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5F and 5H teaches the support members can be cylindrical shape)
Regarding Claim 14,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing the instructions to the additive fabrication device. (Frantzdale in ¶0057 teaches, Method 500 may include act 512 in which the part is fabricated by executing the instructions generated in act 510 by a suitable additive fabrication device)
Regarding Claim 15,
Frantzdale teaches, An additive fabrication device configured to fabricate an object and a support structure for the object, the additive fabrication device comprising: (¶0080 and Fig. 9 teaches additive fabrication device 920)
at least one processor; (¶0081 and Fig. 10 teaches computing environment 1000 which may form some or all of the computer system 910 shown in FIG. 9. ¶0084 teaches a processing unit 1020)
at least one computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, (¶0085 teaches, computer readable media)
generate a 3D model representing a support structure for the object, said generating comprising: (¶0045 teaches, generating a support structure comprising support pillar structures and trusses between the pillar structures along with contact structures that connects each support pillars to a respective contact point)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of support pillars, (¶0045 teaches generating support pillar structures)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of contact structures that couple support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object; and (¶0045 teaches contact structures that connects each support pillars to a respective contact point)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss; and (¶0045 teaches, generating trusses between the pillar structures. ¶0033 and Fig. 3 teaches, some of the support pillars 302 are connected to one or more of the other support pillars via one or more trusses 305)
a fabrication mechanism configured to access a 3D model representing the object and access the 3D model representing the support structure, and to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure. (¶0057 teaches, In act 510, the computing device performing method 500 generates instructions for an additive fabrication device to fabricate the part and the generated support structure, which includes the generated support pillars, contact structures and trusses generated and/or tuned in acts 506 and 508.)
Frantzdale doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches; (Frantzdale doesn’t teach support pillars includes one or more notches. Kohler in ¶0032 teaches a support member with conduction gate. Also teaches, a conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202)
Kohler is an art in the area of interest as it relates to additive manufacturing (see Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the support pillar of Frantzdale in view of Kohler to include notches in the support pillars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Kohler with Frantzdale. One would have been motivated to do so because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Regarding Claim 17
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The additive fabrication device of claim 15, wherein the one or more notches are V-shaped, U-shaped, or rectangular. (Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5A-H As shown in FIG. 5A, a conduction gate 300 may have a rectangular side profile)
Regarding Claim 18,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The additive fabrication device of claim 15, wherein the one or more notches are spaced evenly along the length of the support pillars. (Kohler in ¶
0039 teaches, The distribution of the conduction gates 300 along the vertical axis of the respective support members 202 of the support structure 118 may follow an ordered pattern,
Regarding Claim 19,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The additive fabrication device of claim 15, wherein the plurality of support pillars are cylindrical, prismatic, or triangular in shape. (Kohler in ¶0046-¶0047 and Fig. 5F and 5H teaches the support members can be cylindrical shape)
Regarding Claim 20,
Frantzdale teaches, At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising: (¶0080 teaches, a computer system 910 may execute software that generates instructions for fabricating a part using additive fabrication device, such as method 500 shown in FIG. 5. ¶0085 teaches computer readable media storing the instructions)
generating, using at least one processor, a 3D model representing a support structure for the object, said generating comprising: (¶0045 teaches, generating a support structure comprising support pillar structures and trusses between the pillar structures along with contact structures that connects each support pillars to a respective contact point)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of support pillars, (¶0045 teaches generating support pillar structures)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of contact structures that couple support pillars of the plurality of support pillars to the object; and (¶0045 teaches contact structures that connects each support pillars to a respective contact point)
generating, using the at least one processor, a plurality of trusses, wherein trusses of the plurality of trusses couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss; and (¶0045 teaches, generating trusses between the pillar structures. ¶0033 and Fig. 3 teaches, some of the support pillars 302 are connected to one or more of the other support pillars via one or more trusses 305)
generating instructions for an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the support structure according to the 3D model representing the object and the 3D model representing the support structure. (¶0057 teaches, In act 510, the computing device performing method 500 generates instructions for an additive fabrication device to fabricate the part and the generated support structure, which includes the generated support pillars, contact structures and trusses generated and/or tuned in acts 506 and 508.)
Frantzdale doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein a first support pillar of the plurality of support pillars includes one or more notches; (Frantzdale doesn’t teach support pillars includes one or more notches. Kohler in ¶0032 teaches a support member with conduction gate. Also teaches, a conduction gate 300 represents a portion of a support member 202 that has a narrower cross-sectional width than surrounding areas of the support member 202)
Kohler is an art in the area of interest as it relates to additive manufacturing (see Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the support pillar of Frantzdale in view of Kohler to include notches in the support pillars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Kohler with Frantzdale. One would have been motivated to do so because the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest (see Kohler ¶0021) and thereby improving the build quality of the 3d printed object.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantzdale (US20200307108A1) in view of Kohler (US20200086580A1) and further in view of Meenakshisundaram (US20240227300A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising,
generate the one or more notches at locations on the first support pillar where …a stress value is greater than a predetermined threshold value. (Kohler in ¶0021 teaches, In some embodiments, the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest)
Frantzdale and Kohler doesn’t teach, prior to or while generating the support structure, performing a simulated stress analysis of the support structure in combination with the object, and… where the simulated stress analysis indicates a stress value…. (Meenakshisundaram ¶0080-¶0081 teaches, Referring again to FIG. 3 , the simulation engine can evaluate the behavior of the appliance geometry and support structures under the simulated load, such as the stress distribution, strain distribution, deformation, displacement, generated forces, etc. In some embodiments, for example, the model 400 is used to simulate stress concentration and/or deformation of the dental appliance and support structures during a centrifugation process to remove excess resin after printing. The simulation can be used to measure the stress concentration and/or maximum stress)
Meenakshisundaram is an art in the area of interest as it relates to generating support structures for additively manufactured objects (see Abstract). A combination of Meenakshisundaram with Frantzdale and Kohler would allow the combined system to perform a simulated stress analysis of the support structure in combination with the object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Meenakshisundaram with Frantzdale and Kohler. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow determining behavior of the appliance geometry and support structures under stress distribution and determine stress concentration.
Regarding Claim 16,
Frantzdale and Kohler teaches, The additive fabrication device of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor,
generate the one or more notches at locations on the first support pillar a stress value is greater than a predetermined threshold value. (Kohler in ¶0021 teaches, In some embodiments, the conduction gates may provide an alternate fracture plane that selectively allows individual support members to fracture locally where residual stresses are greatest while the vertical separation of the conduction gates may prevent the fracture from propagating, thereby alleviating residual stresses while isolating the location of the fracture to the area where residual stresses are greatest)
Frantzdale and Kohler doesn’t teach, perform a simulated stress analysis of the support structure in combination with the object, and… where the simulated stress analysis indicates a stress value..(Meenakshisundaram ¶0080-¶0081 teaches, Referring again to FIG. 3 , the simulation engine can evaluate the behavior of the appliance geometry and support structures under the simulated load, such as the stress distribution, strain distribution, deformation, displacement, generated forces, etc. In some embodiments, for example, the model 400 is used to simulate stress concentration and/or deformation of the dental appliance and support structures during a centrifugation process to remove excess resin after printing. The simulation can be used to measure the stress concentration and/or maximum stress)
Meenakshisundaram is an art in the area of interest as it relates to generating support structures for additively manufactured objects (see Abstract). A combination of Meenakshisundaram with Frantzdale and Kohler would allow the combined system to perform a simulated stress analysis of the support structure in combination with the object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Meenakshisundaram with Frantzdale and Kohler. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow determining behavior of the appliance geometry and support structures under stress distribution and determine stress concentration.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantzdale (US20200307108A1) in view of Kohler (US20200086580A1) and further in view of Whelan (US20210080929A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
Frantzdale and Kohler doesn’t teach, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of trusses connecting the support pillars have a connecting point with a reduced thickness compared to a middle section of the truss. (Whelan in ¶0115 teaches, truss 1404 is wider at its base than truss 1403, and tapers from the bottom of the truss to the top where it meets support pillar 1402)
Whelan is an art in the area of interest as it relates to additive fabrication (see ¶0026). One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the trusses as taught by Frantzdale and Kohler to have a connecting point with a reduced thickness compared to a middle section of the truss. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Whelan with Frantzdale and Kohler. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the trusses to be formed from less material and thereby providing necessary mechanical support to the support structure while utilizing less material for fabrication, as taught by Whelan in ¶0115.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantzdale (US20200307108A1) in view of Weiss (US20230152778A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
Frantzdale teaches, A computer-implemented method of generating a support structure for an object represented by a three-dimensional (3D) model, the support structure and the object to be fabricated via additive fabrication, the method comprising: (¶0080 teaches, a computer system 910 may execute software that generates instructions for fabricating a part using additive fabrication device, such as method 500 shown in FIG. 5. ¶0085 teaches computer readable media storing the instructions)
generating, using at least one processor, an initial support structure for the object, the initial support structure comprising a plurality of support pillars, a plurality of contact structures coupling the plurality of support pillars to the object, and a plurality of trusses that couple to different support pillars of the plurality of support pillars at opposing ends of the truss; (¶0045 teaches, generating a support structure comprising support pillar structures and trusses between the pillar structures along with contact structures that connects each support pillars to a respective contact point. ¶0045 teaches, generating trusses between the pillar structures. ¶0033 and Fig. 3 teaches, some of the support pillars 302 are connected to one or more of the other support pillars via one or more trusses 305)
providing instructions to an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object (¶0045 teaches, generating trusses between the pillar structures. ¶0033 and Fig. 3 teaches, some of the support pillars 302 are connected to one or more of the other support pillars via one or more trusses 305)
Frantzdale doesn’t teach, performing a topology optimization process on the initial support structure, wherein the topology optimization process comprises using physical simulation to identify portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses that can be removed without adversely impacting printability object during additive fabrication; (Weiss in ¶0096-¶0100 teaches a topology optimization loop to determine modification of 3D model to require fewer support structures. the modification is applying a geometry filter on the 3D shape to offset profiles from layers of the shape by a predefined amount associated with the additive manufacturing process to define a new 3D model that can support production of a physical structure with additive manufacturing techniques that require fewer support structure)
removing the identified portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses based on the results of the topology optimization process; and (¶0100 teaches, he modified model that is generated through the optimization loop ( operations 230, 235, and 245) can be with improved shape (and optionally topology) to meet design criteria and also to be more self-supporting by reducing the needed support structure for manufacturing using an additive manufacturing tools)
providing instructions to an additive fabrication device that, when executed by the additive fabrication device, cause the additive fabrication device to fabricate the object and the optimized support structure. (¶0101 teaches, Once the predefined number of iterations is completed and/or the 3D model has converged to a stable solution meeting the design criteria, then, at 250, the modified 3D shape of the modeled object is provided for use in manufacturing, e.g., additive manufacturing)
Weiss is an art in the area of interest as it relates to manufacturing of the physical structures using additive manufacturing (see ¶0007). A combination of Weiss with Frantzdale would allow performing a topology optimization process on the initial support structure, wherein the topology optimization process comprises using physical simulation to identify portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses that can be removed and removing identified portions of the support pillars, contact structures, and trusses. Frantzdale in ¶0045 already teaches generating a support structure comprising support pillar structures and trusses between the pillar structures along with contact structures that connects each support pillars to a respective contact point. Weiss teaches modifying the model to reduce the support structure. One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the teachings of Frantzdale in view of Weiss to modify the model to reduce the support structures and since the trusses and contact structures are connected to the support structure reducing the support structure would inevitably also reduce the contact structures and trusses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Weiss with Frantzdale. One would have been motivated to do so because by modifying the generated part design to reduce the amount of support structure that is needed, the additive manufacturing process for the part can be made cheaper and simpler, as taught by Weiss in ¶0021.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/CHAD G ERDMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights