DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notes
Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the registration pattern is positioned to correspond to one quadrant of the build surface” does not necessarily limit the claim to only a single quadrant. The phrase “to correspond to one quadrant” is descriptive, not restrictive. It simply requires that the registration pattern correspond to at least one quadrant, but does not prevent it from corresponding to more. The limitation is interpreted below as if the registration pattern could correspond to one or more quadrants.
Claim 20 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as the examiner cannot make a proper comparison between the claims and the prior art due to 112 (b) issues explained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, ‘‘f) adjusting the relative position of the transfer medium and a build surface based on the positions of the selected features” should be changed to -- f) adjusting the relative position of the transfer medium and the build surface based on the positions of the selected features--. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Claim 1 recites “calculating a score for subsets of features with reference to a template” and claim 20 recites “The method for printing a three-dimensional part of claim 1, further comprising recording a list of N = C_2^n target gap sizes between features”.
The claims are directed to a method for printing a three dimensional part; thus, the claims are to a process claim, which are statutory categories of invention.
The limitations “calculating a score for subsets of features with reference to a template” and “recording a list of N = C_2^n target gap sizes between features” are all limitations that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. That is, nothing in the claim language precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim limitations above fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas, and therefore the claims recite an abstract idea.
As discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a mental process that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper" are considered to be an abstract idea. Classic examples are things like observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions. An example of a claim that recites a
mental process includes a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such
that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group V. Alstom, S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim limitations
above fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas, and therefore the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires “calculating a score for subsets of features with reference to a template” and “recording a list of N = C_2^n target gap sizes between features” and would not appear to be a particular practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The calculation of scores of subsets features is recited at such high level of generality that it equates merely reciting the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. That is, Applicants calculating a score for subsets of features with reference to a template and recording a list of N = C_2^n target gap sizes between features; however, this is recited so broadly and at such a high level of generality that it covers any possible action, and is not a specific particular application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reminder of the independent claim 1 recites steps of "storing a position measurement; adjusting the relative position of the transfer medium; and transferring the toner image from the transfer medium to the build surface" which appear to be well understood routine and conventional.
Further, they don't set forth a particular process, but rather are recited at high level of generality such as calculating features with a reference to a template. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “f) adjusting the relative position of the transfer medium and a build surface based on the positions of the selected features” which is indefinite. The term “selected features” is unclear and fails to provide particularity. Specifically, it is not evident whether “selected features” refer to:
The subsets of features of features scored in step (e), or
The features detected in step (c), or
Some subset of features not explicitly defined in the claim.
The claim does not specify how or when the features are “selected”. Nor does not define the criteria for such selection. Therefore, one of ordinary skill of the art cannot determine with a reasonable certainty what features are used for the adjustment. For the purpose of examination, the limitation examined below as --adjusting the relative position of the transfer medium and a build surface based on the positions of at least three features detected in step (c)--.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 20 recites “The method for printing a three-dimensional part of claim 1, further comprising recording a list of N = C_2^n target gap sizes between features” which is indefinite. The term “C” in the expression of N = C_2^n is unclear and fails to provide sufficient particularity. Specifically, it is not evident from the specification or the claim what the symbol “C” represents. Without a clear definition or explanation of what “C” represents, a person skilled in the art cannot determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-2, 5-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobue (US 2016/0339644) in view of Chefd'hotel (US 2011/0085716).
Regarding claim 1, Sobue teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional part on a build surface (stage (52)) (Abstract; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
a) forming a material toner image (i.e. an image forming unit (100) configured for forming one layer of an image formed from a shaping material) on a transfer medium (transfer member (42)) including a registration pattern comprising at least three features (registration markers AFR, AFL, ARL and ARR) (see Fig. 1 and Figs. 3A-3C; [0011], [0028] and [0032]);
b) transporting the material toner image on the transfer medium (42) to a sensor (54 and /or 55) such that the features of the registration pattern may be detected by the sensor (see Fig.1, Figs. 3A-3C and Fig. 4; [0034], [0056] and [0071]);
c) detecting one or more of the features (see Fig. 3A-3C and Fig. 4; [0056-0057] and [0071-0074]);
d) storing a position measurement for each feature detected by the sensor (see [0057] and [0071-0074]). However, Sobue does not explicitly teach step e) calculating a score for subsets of features with reference to a template.
In analogous art, methods for verifying registration accuracy in digital images, Chefd'hotel teaches a method of verifying a registration of a digital image (Abstract), includes receiving a reference image (a template) and a moving image registered to the reference image representing the same object; selecting one or more landmarks in the images; defining a neighborhood in the domain of each image near each selected landmark, extracting feature sets from the neighborhoods for the reference image and the registered moving image, calculating a total quality measure (score) of the registration of the moving image from a distance metric applied to the feature sets extracted from the neighborhoods of the reference image and the registered moving image (see Fig. 1; [0007], [0010], [0016] and [0020]). Chefd'hotel further teaches that using the calculated total quality measure (a score) method to determine whether accept or reject the registration based on the comparison result (see [0020]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to calculate a score for subsets of features with reference to a template as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Chefd'hotel above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows to evaluate alignment accuracy by calculating a total quality measure (score) to determine whether accept or reject the registration based on the comparison result (as recognized by Chefd'hotel at [0020]).
Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches step f) adjusting the relative position of the transfer medium (42) and a build surface (52) based on the positions of the selected features (i.e. a controller (70) configured to adjust the position of the stage (52) based on the detected results of the positions of the markers (AFR, AFL, ARL and ARR)) (see Fig. 1; [0011], [0056-0058], [0072-0075] and claim 12 of Sobue); and
g) transferring the toner image from the transfer medium (42) to the build surface (52) (see Fig. 1; [0035-0036] of Sobue).
Regarding claim 2, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, further comprising transfusing the transferred toner image to a part forming on the build surface (i.e. configuring a counter member (43) as a heating lamination device which includes a heater, that melts the shaping material image on the transfer member (42), and laminates the image on a shaped object on the stage (52)) (see Fig. 1; [0036] of Sobue).
Regarding claim 5, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the material toner image comprises part material (i.e. a material constituting the shaped object (structure) is called a “structure material”; see [0033] and [0084] of Sobue).
Regarding claim 6, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the material toner image comprises support material (see [0033] of Sobue).
Regarding claim 7, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the registration pattern comprises four or more features (markers) (AFR, AFL, ARL and ARR) (see Figs. 3A-3C; [0046-0048] of Sobue).
Regarding claim 8, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the registration pattern (AFL) is positioned to correspond to one quadrant of the build surface (52) (see annotated Fig. 3 below of Sobue).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the registration pattern is positioned to correspond to two quadrants of the build surface (52) (see annotated Fig. 3 above of Sobue).
Regarding claim 10, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part of, wherein the registration pattern is positioned to correspond to three quadrants of the build surface (52) (see annotated Fig. 3 above of Sobue).
Regarding claim 11, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the registration pattern is positioned to correspond to all four quadrants of the build surface (52) (see annotated Fig. 3 above of Sobue).
Regarding claim 12, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the transfer medium comprises a belt (i.e. the transfer member is transfer belt (42)) (see Fig. 1; [0032] of Sobue).
Regarding claim 13, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the three features (markers AFL, AFR, ARL and ARR) are identical to one another (see Fig. 3A-3C and Fig. 11; [0047] of Sobue).
Regarding claim 14, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part as discussed in claim 1 above.
Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel does not explicitly teach that the three features are different from one another. However, since Sobue teaches the plurality of markers (features) disposed within a shaping area on the stage, at positions distant from one another, and a deformation vector at each position is detected (measured) (see [0051] and claim 4); and the markers are not identical in positioning arrangement such that the relative positions among the markers (AFL, AFR, ARL and AR) have changed because of the image distortion generated in the process of image formation and/or lamination (see [0048]), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the three features are different from one another, as this a standard practice in registration and alignment system to improve accuracy and robustness. Furthermore, using three distinct features is well known technique in the art to define a plane and ensure precise alignment, which is critical in 3D printing applications.
Regarding claim 18, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein adjusting the relative position of the transfer medium (42) and build surface (52) comprises adjustment in the path of direction of travel (i.e. the lamination position adjustment unit 213 controls the driving start timing of the stage driving X motor 112 and the position adjustment unit 213 also controls the stage driving Y motor 113, and aligns the left ends of the shaped object on the stage 52 and the material image on the transfer member 42 based on the positional shift amount of the material image in the Y direction) (see Fig. 1; [0011], [0072] and [0074] of Sobue).
Regarding claim 19, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel further teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part, further comprising creating a template (calibration chart (203)) with "n" features, where n > 3 (i.e. four marks features (AFl, AFR, ARL and ARR which greater than 3) (see Fig. 3A; [0047] of Sobue).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobue (US 2016/0339644) in view of Chefd'hotel (US 2011/0085716) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rogren (US 2020/0108553).
Regarding claim 3, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part as discussed in claim 1 above.
Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel does not explicitly teach the method further comprising detecting one or more fiducials for each material toner image.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Rogren teaches a method for manufacturing three dimensional object, comprises providing fiducials markers (102) for each of patterned single-layer objects on a carrier substrate; detecting one or more fiducials (102) for each material layer with one or more alignment sensors (105) to precisely align printed object (91) with a build plate (see [0026], [0091] and [0124-0125]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Sobue in view of Rogren with detecting one or more fiducials for each material toner image as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Rogren above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would precisely align printed object (91) with a build plate (see [0091] of Rogren).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobue (US 2016/0339644) in view of Chefd'hotel (US 2011/0085716) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dobbertin (US 2015/0212469).
Regarding claim 4, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chefd'hotel further teaches calculating total quality measure (score) for subset features with a reference to a reference image (see [0020]), but Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel does not explicitly teach repeatedly calculating a score for subsets of artifacts with reference to a template.
In the same field endeavor, printing methods for producing printed images, Dobbertin a method for compensating for imaging defects in an electro-photographic imaging system (see [0012]), the method comprising the steps of performing iterative measurements (i.e. repeatedly measuring and correcting) of imaging defects in order to provide compensating for imaging defects in an electro-photographic imaging system and also to reduce density variation (see [0012] and [0078-0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to repeatedly calculate a score for subsets of artifacts with reference to a template as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Dobbertin above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for compensating for imaging defects in an electro-photographic imaging system and also in order to reduce density variation (as recognized by Dobbertin at [0012] and [0078-0079]).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobue (US 2016/0339644) in view of Chefd'hotel (US 2011/0085716) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baecker (US 2016/0339646).
Regarding claim 15, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part as discussed in claim 1 above.
Sobue further teaches that the sensor comprises an optical sensors (see [0049]). However, Sobue does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises an imaging sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Baecker teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional (3D) parts (Abstract), comprises detecting position of overlay (registration pattern) with an imaging sensor in order to reduce the overlay errors (see [0036], [0096] and [0099-0100]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Sobue in view Baecker with an imaging sensor for detecting overlay errors as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Baecker above; and doing so is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so allow for correcting or reducing the registration errors (see [0136-0137]).
Regarding claim 16, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel and Baecker the method for printing a three-dimensional part, wherein the imaging sensor comprises a camera (see [0092] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 17, Sobue in view of Chefd'hotel teaches the method for printing a three-dimensional part as discussed in claim 1 above.
Sobue further teaches the sensor comprises optical sensors (see [0049]). However, Sobue does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a capacitive sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Baecker teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional (3D) parts (Abstract), comprises transporting the material toner image (22) on a transfer medium (24) to a capacitive sensor configured to detect an electrical charge or dielectric of portions of the layers (22) (see Fig. 4;[0096]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Sobue in view Baecker with a capacitive sensor for detecting overlay errors as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Baecker above; and doing so is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so allow for providing the desired detection function (see [0096]).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farah (US 2020/0338814) teaches a method of building a three-dimensional (3D) part on a build platform (28) (Abstract; Fig. 1), the method includes forming a material toner image (22) on a transfer assembly (14); and transferring the toner image from the transfer medium (14) to the build surface (see Figs. 1-3; [0034-0036]).
Batchelder (US 2015/0273767) teaches a method and system for printing a three-dimensional part includes rotating a transfer belt (22) with a developed layer (see Fig.1), scanning the developed layer on the rotating transfer belt, pressing the developed layer into contact with an intermediate build surface (88) of the three-dimensional part retained on a moveable build platform (80) (see Fig. 4;[0063-0067]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743