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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ulu et al (US PUB. 20220234279, herein Ulu).
Regarding claim 1, Ulu teaches A method of manufacturing a three-dimensional shaped article by ejecting a plasticized material from an ejection unit toward a stage to stack layers, the method comprising:
(a) acquiring first data representing a shape of the three-dimensional shaped article (0048)
(b) acquiring time designation information designating a molding time in which molding of the three-dimensional shaped article is completed (0062 “values associated with the text controls 270-278 may cause changes in a material cost (e.g., amount of material used) and time cost (e.g., estimated time to print (“TTP”) estimate for printing of the object that may be provided to user”)
(c) generating second data including information of a path of the ejection unit to the stage (0089) and information of an ejection amount of the plasticized material in the path so that molding of the three-dimensional shaped article is completed within the molding time designated based on the first data and the time designation information (0062 “values associated with the text controls 270-278 may cause changes in a material cost (e.g., amount of material used) and time cost (e.g., estimated time to print (“TTP”) estimate for printing of the object that may be provided to user”);
and (d) controlling the ejection unit based on the second data to mold the three-dimensional shaped article (0062 “values associated with the text controls 270-278 may cause changes in a material cost (e.g., amount of material used) and time cost (e.g., estimated time to print (“TTP”) estimate for printing of the object that may be provided to user. For example, as values of maximum bridging, weight ratio, overhang threshold etc. are changed, the material and time cost display 190 may be updated to reflect changes in material usage and print times resulting from changes to the text control values”)
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach The method of manufacturing the three-dimensional shaped article according to claim 1.
Ulu teaches wherein in the step (c), the second data is generated so that molding of the three-dimensional shaped article is completed within the molding time designated by changing a setting value of at least one setting item among a setting related to a path, a setting related to an ejection amount, a setting related to moving speed of the ejection unit, and a setting related to maintenance of the ejection unit from an initial value (0111 “support layer determination module 35 may be configured to smooth streamlines around junction points using Laplacian smoothing Using this technique, the support layer toolpaths paths may be improved for fused filament fabrication type printing, for example, by limiting issues related to acceleration/deceleration of a print toolhead at sharp corners. This can also improve print times”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulu et al (US PUB. 20220234279, herein Ulu) in further view of Debora et al (US PUB. 20220324177, herein Debora).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teach The method of manufacturing the three-dimensional shaped article according to claim 2.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein a priority order is determined in advance for the setting items, and in the step (c), a setting value of the setting item high in priority order is changed with priority.
Debora teaches wherein a priority order is determined in advance for the setting items, and in the step (c), a setting value of the setting item high in priority order is changed with priority (0102 “Calculating the print time, for example, may be done through executing the slicing of a print file or by using a digital twin to simulate the process. This step may include calculating the total energy used by the system during the workflow. The total energy and total print time would be two examples of key metrics that could then be used to calculate a workflow score based on user-specified criteria at step 718. If, for example, there are two practical workflows where a first workflow (“workflow one”) is projected to take 40 hours and 1000 units of energy, and a second workflow (workflow two”) is projected to take 20 hours and 2000 units of energy, the decision regarding which one is “better” may be based on a user-specified or pre-programmed scoring system. If, for example, a user specifies that total print time has a relative importance of 90% and total energy usage has a relative importance of 10%, then these can be used to determine the weighting of each factor for a final score. For example, if scoring is out of 100 and since 90% of the score is based on print time, then workflow one would get 45 points and workflow two would get 90 points, as workflow one being half the speed of workflow two would get half the total points as workflow two. The scoring for energy used would similarly allot workflow one with 10 points given it has the lowest energy usage, and workflow two would get five points as it has double the energy usage. The total scores would thus be computed as 55 points for workflow one and 95 points for workflow two. Workflow two scoring higher than workflow one would then lead to workflow two being selected. The system would then implement the configuration of the selected workflow using robotics at step 722. This may include, for example, positioning the required feedstock(s) at one or more printers based on the printing requirements of the first print(s). The system would then initiate the workflow at step 724..”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ulu with the teachings of Debora since Debora teaches a means for “able to achieve the production objectives faster through automated configuration of the system for efficient parallel printing” (0098).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teach The method of manufacturing the three-dimensional shaped article according to claim 3.
Debora teaches wherein, in the step (c), predicted molding time calculated using the setting value and the molding time designated are compared to each other to determine whether the molding is completed within the molding time designated, and the second data is generated by changing the setting value of the setting item high in priority order with priority when the molding is not completed within the molding time designated, and repeating the change of the setting value until the predicted molding time calculated based on the setting value changed falls within the molding time designated (0102 “Calculating the print time, for example, may be done through executing the slicing of a print file or by using a digital twin to simulate the process. This step may include calculating the total energy used by the system during the workflow. The total energy and total print time would be two examples of key metrics that could then be used to calculate a workflow score based on user-specified criteria at step 718. If, for example, there are two practical workflows where a first workflow (“workflow one”) is projected to take 40 hours and 1000 units of energy, and a second workflow (workflow two”) is projected to take 20 hours and 2000 units of energy, the decision regarding which one is “better” may be based on a user-specified or pre-programmed scoring system. If, for example, a user specifies that total print time has a relative importance of 90% and total energy usage has a relative importance of 10%, then these can be used to determine the weighting of each factor for a final score. For example, if scoring is out of 100 and since 90% of the score is based on print time, then workflow one would get 45 points and workflow two would get 90 points, as workflow one being half the speed of workflow two would get half the total points as workflow two. The scoring for energy used would similarly allot workflow one with 10 points given it has the lowest energy usage, and workflow two would get five points as it has double the energy usage. The total scores would thus be computed as 55 points for workflow one and 95 points for workflow two. Workflow two scoring higher than workflow one would then lead to workflow two being selected. The system would then implement the configuration of the selected workflow using robotics at step 722. This may include, for example, positioning the required feedstock(s) at one or more printers based on the printing requirements of the first print(s). The system would then initiate the workflow at step 724..”).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teach The method of manufacturing the three-dimensional shaped article according to claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach further comprising: acquiring molding schedule information of the three-dimensional shaped article, wherein in the step (b), a non-operation time period during which the three-dimensional molding apparatus is not in operation is identified from the molding schedule information, and a time period within the non-operation time period identified is acquired as the time designation information.
Debora teaches further comprising: acquiring molding schedule information of the three-dimensional shaped article, wherein in the step (b), a non-operation time period during which the three-dimensional molding apparatus is not in operation is identified from the molding schedule information, and a time period within the non-operation time period identified is acquired as the time designation information (0101 “ACMW technology in some embodiments for determining a workflow based on scoring between practical alternatives and with continuous monitoring. An ACMW system may receive and identify one or more production objectives at step 700. The status of each module will then be identified at step 708. This may include identifying the state of a module such as, for example, if a printer is available for a new print or if it is currently printing. This may also include time based information and predictive information such as when a printer will become available. Step 708 may also include identifying any feedstock sources at the system and the amount of each type of feedstock at each source. This may also include time based information and predictive information such as the amount of feedstock that will be available at each feedstock source based on expected consumption based on printing and other workflows that may already be scheduled. This may be important as for example, if a workflow is being decided on and will be initiated in the future then the input state in the future may in some cases be more useful than the current input state during the execution of the process”, 0102 “system would then implement the configuration of the selected workflow using robotics at step 722. This may include, for example, positioning the required feedstock(s) at one or more printers based on the printing requirements of the first print(s). The system would then initiate the workflow at step 724. It is worth noting that the workflow may include one or more printers and one or more prints to be done on each printer, and thus step 722 may require one or more configurations, e.g., to start the workflow as well as during the workflow.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ulu with the teachings of Bradway since Bradway teaches a means for “minimizing interruptions in the printing process of the system 200 can beneficially enable a steady workflow of printing operations, and a decrease in downtime for printing station upkeep” (0037).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teach The method of manufacturing the three-dimensional shaped article according to claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach further comprising: acquiring molding schedule information of the three-dimensional shaped article; and identifying, from the molding schedule information, a non-operation time period during which the three-dimensional molding apparatus is not in operation to regenerate second data of the three-dimensional shaped article scheduled at time immediately before or immediately after the non-operation time so that the molding time of the second data elongates into a range of the non-operation time period.
Debora teaches further comprising: acquiring molding schedule information of the three-dimensional shaped article; and identifying, from the molding schedule information, a non-operation time period during which the three-dimensional molding apparatus is not in operation to regenerate second data of the three-dimensional shaped article scheduled at time immediately before or immediately after the non-operation time so that the molding time of the second data elongates into a range of the non-operation time period (0037 “printing stations while minimizing interruptions in the printing process of the system 200 can beneficially enable a steady workflow of printing operations, and a decrease in downtime for printing station upkeep. It is also desirable that maintenance platforms not collide with or impede the movement of media platforms. Advantageously, the controller 214 can be further configured to coordinate movement of maintenance platforms 202c-e with the movement of media platforms 202a and 202b by selectively operating the actuators 215, 217 of the first and second tracks 204, 208, and the switch 210. In other words, the controller 212 can be configured to schedule an operation on a printing station during a period of time when a media platform is not occupying in the printing station. For example, the controller 212 can schedule operations at predetermined intervals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ulu with the teachings of Bradway since Bradway teaches a means for “minimizing interruptions in the printing process of the system 200 can beneficially enable a steady workflow of printing operations, and a decrease in downtime for printing station upkeep” (0037).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teach The method of manufacturing the three-dimensional shaped article according to claim 1.
Debora teaches further comprising: calculating a shortest molding time and a longest molding time of the three-dimensional shaped article and notifying a user of the shortest molding time and the longest molding time (0102 “If, for example, there are two practical workflows where a first workflow (“workflow one”) is projected to take 40 hours and 1000 units of energy, and a second workflow (workflow two”) is projected to take 20 hours and 2000 units of energy, the decision regarding which one is “better” may be based on a user-specified or pre-programmed scoring system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ulu with the teachings of Debora since Debora teaches a means for “able to achieve the production objectives faster through automated configuration of the system for efficient parallel printing” (0098).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulu et al (US PUB. 20220234279, herein Ulu) in further view of Manousakis (US PUB. 20200298495).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teach The method of manufacturing the three-dimensional shaped article according to claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach further comprising: acquiring molding schedule information of the three-dimensional shaped article; and regenerating the second data so that when molding schedule of the three-dimensional shaped article having a first molding priority overlaps molding schedule of the three-dimensional shaped article having a second molding priority lower than the first molding priority, the molding time of the three-dimensional shaped article having the second molding priority is shortened.
Manousakis teaches further comprising: acquiring molding schedule information of the three-dimensional shaped article; and regenerating the second data so that when molding schedule of the three-dimensional shaped article having a first molding priority overlaps molding schedule of the three-dimensional shaped article having a second molding priority lower than the first molding priority, the molding time of the three-dimensional shaped article having the second molding priority is shortened (0033 “a processor carrying out the method may receive or hold priority indicators for the objects under generation. In some examples, such priority level(s) may be included in a status indicator for an additive manufacturing apparatus. The priority level may be utilised such that lower priority objects may be removed from a virtual build volume (i.e. a model of a build volume which is to be generated using additive manufacturing), or the generation of a lower priority object may be abandoned, in order to accommodate higher priority objects. In some examples, the priority indictor may be an indication of a manufacturing deadline, and objects with an earlier deadline may be prioritised over objects with a later deadline”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ulu with the teachings of Manousakis since Manousakis teaches a means for accommodating higher priority objects (0033).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teach The method of manufacturing the three-dimensional shaped article according to claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach further comprising: acquiring molding schedule information of the three-dimensional shaped article and user information of the three-dimensional shaped article; and regenerating the second data so that when molding schedule of the three-dimensional shaped article having a first molding priority overlaps molding schedule of the three-dimensional shaped article having a second molding priority lower than the first molding priority, and when the user information of the three-dimensional shaped article having the first molding priority is common to the user information of the three-dimensional shaped article having the second molding priority, the molding time of the three-dimensional shaped article having the second molding priority is shortened.
Manousakis teaches further comprising: acquiring molding schedule information of the three-dimensional shaped article and user information of the three-dimensional shaped article; and regenerating the second data so that when molding schedule of the three-dimensional shaped article having a first molding priority overlaps molding schedule of the three-dimensional shaped article having a second molding priority lower than the first molding priority, and when the user information of the three-dimensional shaped article having the first molding priority is common to the user information of the three-dimensional shaped article having the second molding priority, the molding time of the three-dimensional shaped article having the second molding priority is shortened (0033 “a processor carrying out the method may receive or hold priority indicators for the objects under generation. In some examples, such priority level(s) may be included in a status indicator for an additive manufacturing apparatus. The priority level may be utilised such that lower priority objects may be removed from a virtual build volume (i.e. a model of a build volume which is to be generated using additive manufacturing), or the generation of a lower priority object may be abandoned, in order to accommodate higher priority objects. In some examples, the priority indictor may be an indication of a manufacturing deadline, and objects with an earlier deadline may be prioritised over objects with a later deadline”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ulu with the teachings of Manousakis since Manousakis teaches a means for accommodating higher priority objects (0033).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMEEM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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 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.
/TAMEEM D SIDDIQUEE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights