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 . This action is made non-final.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 07/31/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 07/31/2024 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Side view of the top-down views of the overhanging and non-overhanging features of next layer.
Side view of the top-down views for the step-out based semi-local correction and restricted semi-local correction method.
Local correction method
Restricted semi-local correction with trim
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
“A method for operating a three-dimensional (3D) metal object manufacturing apparatus compensates for surface deviations of overhanging features differently than for non-overhanging features.” Should read “A method for operating a three-dimensional (3D) metal object manufacturing apparatus that compensates for surface deviations of overhanging features differently than for non-overhanging features.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001] has an incomplete U.S. Patent Number and issued date in the Priority Claim see “and which issued as U.S. Patent Number xx, xxx, xxx on mm/dd/yyyy.”
Paragraph [0007] is incomplete as the last sentence “the method includes” ends abruptly. It is observed that paragraph [0007] is a repeat of paragraph [0006].
Paragraph [0030] “The overhanging edge is determined with reference to an extra unsupported step-out pass of the melted metal drop ejector performed along the outer perimeter as described in co-pending patent application S/N 17/159,975 filed on January 27, 2021 and entitled “Method And Apparatus For Forming Overhang Structures With A Metal Drop Ejecting Three-Dimensional (3D) Object Printer.”” It is improper because the disclosure must teach all aspects of the invention.
Paragraph [0006] “an uppermost layer in an object” would be better written as “an uppermost layer of an object” to be consistent with language “layer of” as seen in paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0010], [0011], [0013], [0014], [0028], [0029], [0032], and [0038].
Paragraphs [0035] and [0036] “offset-based semi-local” should be “step-out based semi-local.”
Paragraph [0036] “offset-based semi-local method with trim” should be corrected to “restricted semi-local method with trim.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 16, “uppermost layer in an object being formed” aligns more with the specification if written as “uppermost layer of an object being formed.”
Claims 2-12 and 20, 14-15 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon Claim 1 and Claim 13 and Claim 16 respectively.
Further regarding claim 20, there is an additional “.” at the end that is not supposed to be there.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 6-7 and 13-15 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.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 14, the claims are considered indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear due to an inconsistency between the language of the claim and what is described within the specification. Specifically, the claim uses the language “offset-based semi-local correction method” However, the specification does not define what this correction method entails. While the phrasing is included within the specification within paragraphs [0035] - [0036], these areas do not reasonably describe the feature of an offset-based semi-local correction method.
However, because paragraph [0036] recites the phrasing “To evaluate the effectiveness of the offset-based semi-local method, restricted semi-local method, and the offset-based semi-local method with trim …” and further because paragraph [0026] discusses “step-out based semi-local correction”, “restricted semi-local correction”, and restricted semi-local correction with trim”, the examiner will interpret “offset-based semi local correction” to mean “step-out based semi-local correction.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected as being dependent upon Claim 6 and Claim 14 respectively.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (US-20230339022-A1) in view of Gibson (US-20220168812-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fu teaches a method of operating an additive manufacturing drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) comprising:
generating digital image data of an uppermost layer in an object being formed with drops of a material ejected from the drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]);
modifying machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) used to operate the drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) to form an overhanging feature of a next layer of the object (layer already formed 2b and one layer to be formed 2a with suspended area 20a as shown in FIG. 4 and as described in [0061]) using a first correction method (Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]) and the generated digital image data;
modifying machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) used to operate the drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) to form a non-overhanging feature of the next layer of the object (layer already formed 2b and one layer to be formed 2a with non-suspended area 21a as shown in FIG. 4 and as described in [0061]) using a second correction method (Setting forming parameters S105 with first process parameters for preparation are set for the first path 121 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a first path 121 corresponds with the non-suspended area 21a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]) and the generated digital image data, the second correction method being different than the first correction method ( “wherein the energy density in the first process parameters for preparation is smaller than the energy density in the second process parameters for preparation,” [0064]); and
executing the modified machine-ready instructions to operate the drop ejecting apparatus to form the next layer of the object (Printing the forming part layer by layer S106 in FIG. 3 “Specifically, printing is performed layer by layer based on the set process parameters for preparation” [0066]).
Fu has surface scanning done by a laser spot moving along a path (as shown in FIGs 5 and 6 and paragraph [0061]) but not with generated digital image data.
However, Gibson teaches surface scanning done with generated digital image data (“the uppermost surface of the part being manufactured is measured for height by a sensor, … Sensors and techniques that can be used for the is determination include: a laser point scanner, scanned across the part surface; a laser line scanner; a camera with auto-focus, … a camera with a fixed focus, … a camera with a motorized focus swept through a range,” [0019]).
Because Gibson’s teaching is also directed to additive manufacturing using droplet ejecting (as shown in FIG. 1 and Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to swap scanning the top surface using a laser spot in the method of Fu with scanning the top surface using a camera with computer vison of Gibson for the purpose increasing the speed of the scanning process by evaluating large portions of the top surface,” (Gibson: [0052]).
Regarding Claim 2, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 1
Gibson further teaches further comprising: operating a digital camera aligned along a Z-axis in the apparatus (sensor 120 in FIG. 1 and sensor can be a camera using computer vision while looking across the top surface to measure height as described in paragraph [0019]) to generate the digital image data of the uppermost layer of the object (“the uppermost surface of the part being manufactured is measured for height by a sensor” [0019]).
Regarding Claim 3. Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 1
Gibson further teaches wherein the additive manufacturing drop ejecting apparatus is a melted metal drop ejecting apparatus (additive manufacturing system 100 that ejects solid metal 112 melted liquid metal drops 112’ as shown in FIG. 1 and described in paragraph [0038]).
Regarding Figure 4, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 3
Fu further teaches further comprising: generating a gain map1 using the generated digital image data, the first correction method using a first portion of the gain map to identify changes to be made to the machine-ready instructions that form the overhanging feature (Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]) and the second correction method using a second portion of the gain map to identify changes to be made to the machine-ready instructions that form the non-overhanging feature (Setting forming parameters S105 with first process parameters for preparation are set for the first path 121 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a first path 121 corresponds with the non-suspended area 21a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]).
Fu teaches a map-like schematic of the forming a top layer (FIGs 5 and 6) that was created using a moving path of a laser spot [0061]. Fu also teaches path planning for sufficient forming layer thickness between the first and second paths (as described in paragraph [0077]). Gibson taught that a laser point scanner and a camera are sensors and techniques that can measure the height of the uppermost part of the surface as described in the rejection for claim 1.
Gibson further teaches generating a gain map using generated image data and using the gain map for corrections (“The data for height of scanned areas is stored as an array of positions and corresponding heights (e.g. a 3D map) which can be referred to for corrective action,” [0055]) and first portion of the gain map (high risk areas as described in paragraph [0056]) and second portion of the gain map (low risk areas as mentioned in paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Claim 5, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 4
Gibson further teaches wherein the second correction method is a local correction method2 (“the uppermost surface of the part being manufactured is measured for height by a sensor, … before the deposition of the subsequent layer,” [0019]; “In another embodiment, global height error is compensated for by adjusting the planned height of subsequent layers of the part to match the new layer height measured on the part. This can be done for example by re-running the ‘slicing’ software known to the art on the remaining portion of the part to be printed, the measured de facto layer height being given as an input to the software instead of the prior nominal layer height,” [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 5
Fu further teaches wherein the first correction method (“Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs,” [0061]-[0067]) is an offset-based semi-local correction method3 (modification of machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) .
Gibson further teaches wherein (
Regarding Claim 8, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 4
Fu further teaches wherein the first correction method (“Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs” [0061]-[0067]) is a restricted semi-local correction method4 (modification of machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) .
Gibson further teaches wherein (.
Regarding Claim 10, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 4
Fu further teaches wherein the first correction method (“Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs” [0061]-[0067]) is a restricted semi-local correction method with trim5 (modification of machine-ready instructions (Fu: Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) .
Gibson further teaches wherein (FIGs 11 and 12) from which a portion at one or more ends of the segment has been removed (addressing sharp corners as described in paragraph [0106] and FIGs 12-14)).
Regarding Claim 13, Fu teaches a method of operating an additive manufacturing drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) comprising:
(“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]);
modifying machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) used to operate the drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) to form an overhanging feature of a next layer of the object (layer already formed 2b and one layer to be formed 2a with suspended area 20a as shown in FIG. 4 and as described in [0061]) using an offset-based semi-local correction method6 (modification of machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) and
modifying machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) used to operate the drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) to form a non-overhanging feature of the next layer of the object (layer already formed 2b and one layer to be formed 2a with non-suspended area 21a as shown in FIG. 4 and as described in [0061]) 7
executing the modified machine-ready instructions to operate the drop ejecting apparatus to form the next layer of the object (Printing the forming part layer by layer S106 in FIG. 3 “Specifically, printing is performed layer by layer based on the set process parameters for preparation” [0066]).
Fu has surface scanning done by a laser spot moving along a path (as shown in FIGs 5 and 6 and paragraph [0061]) but not with generated digital image data. Fu also does not teach fully an offset-based semi-local correction method and a local correction method.
However, Gibson teaches surface scanning done with generated digital image data (“the uppermost surface of the part being manufactured is measured for height by a sensor, … Sensors and techniques that can be used for the is determination include: a laser point scanner, scanned across the part surface; a laser line scanner; a camera with auto-focus, … a camera with a fixed focus, … a camera with a motorized focus swept through a range,” [0019]), an offset-based semi-local correction method (areas is stored as an array of positions and corresponding heights (e.g. a 3D map) which can be referred to for corrective action,” [0055]) that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out to be formed (Overhang and linear path described in paragraphs [0100]-[0101] and [0081]-[0084] and shown in FIGs 11 and 12) and a local correction method (“the uppermost surface of the part being manufactured is measured for height by a sensor, … before the deposition of the subsequent layer,” [0019]; “In another embodiment, global height error is compensated for by adjusting the planned height of subsequent layers of the part to match the new layer height measured on the part. This can be done for example by re-running the ‘slicing’ software known to the art on the remaining portion of the part to be printed, the measured de facto layer height being given as an input to the software instead of the prior nominal layer height,” [0072]).
Because Gibson’s teaching is also directed to additive manufacturing using droplet ejecting (as shown in FIG. 1 and Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to swap scanning the top surface using a laser spot in the method of Fu with scanning the top surface using a camera with computer vison of Gibson for the purpose increasing the speed of the scanning process by evaluating large portions of the top surface,” (Gibson: [0052]). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of the offset-based semi-local correction method and local correction method of Gibson with the methods of correcting overhang and non-overhang in Fu for the purpose of controlling the height in the Z-axis layers (Gibson: Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 13
Fu further teaches further comprising: 8 (modification of machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) using a first portion (Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]) and (Setting forming parameters S105 with first process parameters for preparation are set for the first path 121 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a first path 121 corresponds with the non-suspended area 21a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]).
Fu teaches a map-like schematic of the forming a top layer (FIGs 5 and 6) that was created using a moving path of a laser spot [0061]. Fu also teaches path planning for sufficient forming layer thickness between the first and second paths (as described in paragraph [0077]). Gibson taught that a laser point scanner and a camera are sensors and techniques that can measure the height of the uppermost part of the surface as described in the rejection for claim 13. Gibson also taught the offset-based semi-local correction method and local correction method in the claim 13 rejection.
Gibson further teaches generating a gain map using generated image data and using the gain map for corrections (“The data for height of scanned areas is stored as an array of positions and corresponding heights (e.g. a 3D map) which can be referred to for corrective action,” [0055]), first portion of the gain map (high risk areas as described in paragraph [0056]), second portion of the gain map (low risk areas as mentioned in paragraph [0056]), an offset-based semi-local correction method ( and a local correction method (“the uppermost surface of the part being manufactured is measured for height by a sensor, … before the deposition of the subsequent layer,” [0019]; “In another embodiment, global height error is compensated for by adjusting the planned height of subsequent layers of the part to match the new layer height measured on the part. This can be done for example by re-running the ‘slicing’ software known to the art on the remaining portion of the part to be printed, the measured de facto layer height being given as an input to the software instead of the prior nominal layer height,” [0072]).
Regarding Claim 16. Fu teaches a method of operating an additive manufacturing drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) comprising:
(“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]);
modifying machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) used to operate the drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) to form an overhanging feature of a next layer of the object (layer already formed 2b and one layer to be formed 2a with suspended area 20a as shown in FIG. 4 and as described in [0061]) using a first correction method (Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]) and
modifying machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) used to operate the drop ejecting apparatus (“In the process of additive manufacturing, the powder melted by laser energy is represented as liquid droplets that accommodating in a molten pool of a base material, and a body of the forming part will be formed when the molten pool is cooled for solidification,” [0052]) to form a non-overhanging feature of the next layer of the object (layer already formed 2b and one layer to be formed 2a with non-suspended area 21a as shown in FIG. 4 and as described in [0061]) using a second correction method (Setting forming parameters S105 with first process parameters for preparation are set for the first path 121 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a first path 121 corresponds with the non-suspended area 21a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]) and (“wherein the energy density in the first process parameters for preparation is smaller than the energy density in the second process parameters for preparation,” [0064]);
9(Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]) and the second correction method using a second portion (Setting forming parameters S105 with first process parameters for preparation are set for the first path 121 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a first path 121 corresponds with the non-suspended area 21a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs [0061]-[0067]); and
executing the modified machine-ready instructions to operate the drop ejecting apparatus to form the next layer of the object (Printing the forming part layer by layer S106 in FIG. 3 “Specifically, printing is performed layer by layer based on the set process parameters for preparation” [0066]).
Fu has surface scanning done by a laser spot moving along a path (as shown in FIGs 5 and 6 and paragraph [0061]) but not with generated digital image data. Fu teaches a map-like schematic of the forming a top layer (FIGs 5 and 6) that was created using a moving path of a laser spot [0061]. Fu also teaches path planning for sufficient forming layer thickness between the first and second paths (as described in paragraph [0077]). Fu also does not teach the generating a gain map using generated image data and using the gain map for corrections.
However, Gibson teaches surface scanning done with generated digital image data (“the uppermost surface of the part being manufactured is measured for height by a sensor, … Sensors and techniques that can be used for the is determination include: a laser point scanner, scanned across the part surface; a laser line scanner; a camera with auto-focus, … a camera with a fixed focus, … a camera with a motorized focus swept through a range,” [0019]) and generating a gain map using generated image data and using the gain map for corrections (“The data for height of scanned areas is stored as an array of positions and corresponding heights (e.g. a 3D map) which can be referred to for corrective action,” [0055]) and first portion of the gain map (high risk areas as described in paragraph [0056]) and second portion of the gain map (low risk areas as mentioned in paragraph [0056]).
Because Gibson’s teaching is also directed to additive manufacturing using droplet ejecting (as shown in FIG. 1 and Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to swap scanning the top surface using a laser spot in the method of Fu with scanning the top surface using a camera with computer vison of Gibson for the purpose increasing the speed of the scanning process by evaluating large portions of the top surface,” (Gibson: [0052]). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of the gain map of top surface of Gibson with the methods of scanning the top surface of the object of Fu for the purpose of monitoring the height in the Z-axis layers (Gibson: Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 16
Fu further teaches wherein the first correction method (“Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs” [0061]-[0067]) is a restricted semi-local correction method10 (modification of machine-ready instructions (Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) using gain map values that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out from which curves have been filtered).
Gibson further teaches wherein (.
Regarding claim 19, Fu and Gibson teach the method of claim 16
Fu further teaches wherein the first correction method (“Setting forming parameters S105 with second process parameters for preparation are set for the second path 122 where scanning path planning S104 consists of a second path 122 corresponds with the suspended area 20a as shown in FIGs 3-6 and as described in paragraphs” [0061]-[0067]) is a restricted semi-local correction method with trim11 (modification of machine-ready instructions (Fu: Setting forming parameters S105 as shown in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]) using gain map values that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out from which a portion at one or more ends of the segment has been removed).
Gibson further teaches wherein (modification of machine-ready instructions using gain map values (“The data for height of scanned areas is stored as an array of positions and corresponding heights (e.g. a 3D map) which can be referred to for corrective action,” [0055]) that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out (Overhang and linear path described in paragraphs [0100]-[0101] and [0081]-[0084] and shown in FIGs 11 and 12) from which a portion at one or more ends of the segment has been removed (addressing sharp corners as described in paragraph [0106] and FIGs 12-14)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chin (US-20170056970-A1) teaches additive manufacturing metal drop ejecting apparatus and a surface map of the top layer during fabrication.
Mantell (US-20200324486-A1) teaches additive manufacturing metal drop ejecting apparatus, a map that can be data of the modified layers, and overhangs.
Mantell (US-20210096537-A1) teaches additive manufacturing metal drop ejecting apparatus and a map that can be data of the modified layers.
Schiffres (US-20240082920-A1) teaches additive manufacturing metal drop ejecting apparatus and printing features including sharp corners, cantilevered features, and overhang features.
Gonzalez Martin (US-20230102130-A1) teaches additive manufacturing apparatus that can use metal powder that observes and compares heights.
Kothari (US-11409261-B2) teaches additive manufacturing apparatus that can use metal powder that observes layer distribution values.
Kerekes (US-6492651-B2) teaches additive manufacturing apparatus that does surface scanning to actively monitor surface height.
Himmel (US-20240091859-A1) teaches additive manufacturing metal drop ejecting apparatus that compensates for overhanging regions without the use of support structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA D CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-0906. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am - 5pm.
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.
/JESSICA DORA CHAU/
/J.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
1 Gain map is defined in the applicant’s specification as “array of locations with numerical representation deviation of actual height of the drop at location with the expected height of the drop at that location” in paragraph [0029].
2 Local correction is defined in the applicant’s specification as “measure the top surface height and adjust instructions for producing subsequent layers to compensate for variations” in paragraph [0028]
3 Offset-based semi-local correction is interpreted as step-out based semi-local following the 112(b) rejection above. Step-out based semi-local correction is defined in the applicant’s specification as “modification of machine-ready instructions using gain map values that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out to be formed in a next layer” in paragraph [0027]
4 Restricted semi-local correction method is defined in the applicant’s specification as “modification of machine-ready instructions using gain map values that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out from which curves have been filtered” in paragraph [0027]
5 Restricted semi-local correction method with trim is defined in the applicant’s specification as “modification of machine-ready instructions using gain map values that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out from which a portion at one or more ends of the segment has been removed” in paragraph [0027]
6 Offset-based semi-local correction is interpreted as step-out based semi-local following the 112(b) rejection above. Step-out based semi-local correction is defined in the applicant’s specification as “modification of machine-ready instructions using gain map values that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out to be formed in a next layer” in paragraph [0027]
7 Local correction is defined in the applicant’s specification as “measure the top surface height and adjust instructions for producing subsequent layers to compensate for variations” in paragraph [0028]
8 Gain map is defined in the applicant’s specification as “array of locations with numerical representation deviation of actual height of the drop at location with the expected height of the drop at that location” in paragraph [0029].
9 Gain map is defined in the applicant’s specification as “array of locations with numerical representation deviation of actual height of the drop at location with the expected height of the drop at that location” in paragraph [0029].
10 Restricted semi-local correction method is defined in the applicant’s specification as “modification of machine-ready instructions using gain map values that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out from which curves have been filtered” in paragraph [0027]
11 Restricted semi-local correction method with trim is defined in the applicant’s specification as “modification of machine-ready instructions using gain map values that correspond to a straight segment of a step-out from which a portion at one or more ends of the segment has been removed” in paragraph [0027]
