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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mercelis et al. (hereinafter “Mercelis”) (US 20130312928 A1).
As to claim 1, Mercelis teaches a method of printing a part, comprising:
receiving a representation of a part to be printed ([0033] The shape and dimensions of such three-dimensional products are determined for example by means of a CAD program and are thus available in electronic format);
analyzing the representation along one or more of an X-Y plane, X-Z plane, and Y-Z plane to identify an aspect ratio of the part ([0010-0011, 0054] a thin-walled structure is meant, for example, a structure whose ratio of the horizontal length to the horizontal thickness is larger than 10…Both products 15 and 16 have a part 17, 18 respectively with a thin-walled structure whose ratio of the length 1.sub.4 over the thickness d.sub.4 is larger than 10. If these products 15 and 16 are to be produced as separate from one another, they will deform and possibly crack as already explained above);
comparing the aspect ratio to a threshold value ([0010-0011, 0036, 0054] a thin-walled structure is meant, for example, a structure whose ratio of the horizontal length to the horizontal thickness is larger than 10…a structure whereby the ratio of the surface of a horizontal section to the average horizontal thickness of this structure is larger than a predetermined value…);
determining that a support structure for the part is needed based on the comparison of the aspect ratio to the threshold value; and providing instructions to a 3D printer to print the part including the support structure ([0010, 0018, 0057-0060] manufacturing at least one thin-walled structure which is built in layers, whereby a support structure is built in layers together with said thin-walled structure, whereby this support structure joins at least one side of said thin-walled structure and is connected to the latter while the thin-walled structure and the support structure are being built in layers together, such that a rigid unit is made…The total thickness d.sub.5 of the thin-walled structures 17 and 18 and the support structure 20 is sufficiently large, such that the ratio of its length 1.sub.4 in relation to the total thickness d.sub.5 is smaller than 10) [it is inherently that need to determine and provide instructions to a 3D printer that a support structure for the thin part is needed to make the total ratio of its length in relation to the total thickness is smaller than 10 before print out the parts].
As to claim 4, Mercelis teaches the support structure comprises a support that extends along the Z-axis of the printed part [Fig. 12].
As to claim 5, Mercelis teaches the support structure extending along the Z-axis of the printed part comprises a lattice support [0057, 0067].
As to claim 7, Mercelis teaches the support structure extending along the Z-axis of the printed part comprises a full support [Fig. 12].
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercelis in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”) (US 20170120525 A1).
As to claim 2, Mercelis teaches a method for manufacturing a product such that adds support structure to the product according to aspect ratio of its length in relation to the total thickness [0010, 0018, 0057-0060]. Mercelis does not explicitly teach prompting a user to select whether to provide the instructions to the 3D printer.
However, Zhang teaches a 3D printing method to print a 3-dimensional object in a layer by layer printing manner. Especially, Zhang teaches prompting a user to select whether to provide the instructions to the 3D printer during the 3D printing process ([0016, 0047-0048] In step S162, whether the support structure is added or not is determined according to the user requirement. If the user determines to add the support structure, then step S163 is performed; if the user does not determine to add the support structure, then step S165 is performed….when the three-dimensional model has a suspended structure of a small angle or is simple, the user can determine whether the support structure is added or not according to the practical case. Therefore, by the manner that the 3D printing platform determines whether the support structure is added or not according to the user requirement).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Mercelis for the purpose of providing an option to the user to decide whether a support structure is added or not according to practical case and user requirement.
As to claim 3, Zhang teaches the instructions to the 3D printer are provided following the user choosing to provide the instructions to the 3D printer [0016, 0047-0048].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercelis in view of ALCANTARA et al. (hereinafter “ALCANTARA ”) (US 20170232683 A1).
As to claim 6, Mercelis teaches a method for manufacturing a product such that adds support structure to the product according to aspect ratio of its length in relation to the total thickness, and the support structure extending along the Z-axis of the printed part [Figs. 10-12] [0010, 0018, 0057-0060]. Mercelis does not explicitly teach the support comprises an arch support.
However, ALCANTARA teaches a method for additive manufacturing (AM) that utilize connecting support structures in the process of building objects. Especially, ALCANTARA teaches using arch support along Z-axis to provide support during 3D printing process [Figs. 2-4 showing arch supports 230 240 250 and 330] [0016-0017, 0022].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of ALCANTARA with the teachings of Mercelis for the purpose of providing different type of support structure to manufacture a product according to practical case.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights