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 1-22 are pending, of which claim 1 is an independent claim.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the priority benefit of US provisional application No. 63/532,205 filed on 08/11/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024, 11/27/2024, and 03/17/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 2, line 1, replace “a fabrication” with “the fabrication”.
Claim 5, line 1, replace “a feature” with “the feature”.
Claim 6, line 1, replace “a feature” with “the feature”.
Claim 7, line 1, replace “a feature” with “the feature”.
Claim 19, line 1, replace “a first” with “the first”.
Claim 19, line 1, replace “a second” with “the second”.
Claim 20, line 1, replace “a first” with “the first”.
Claim 20, line 1, replace “a second” with “the second”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Duplicate Claims, Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 8 and 22 be found allowable, claims 8 and 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tobia et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0329501 A1) (“Tobia”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tobia teaches:
A method for fabricating a physical object comprising: Tobia: Paragraph [0054] (“An example embodiment enables the 3D printing system to correct for inaccuracies, such as dimensional or mass inaccuracies, or any other inaccuracies. An example embodiment may identify such inaccuracies via measuring at least one characteristic of the object during or after the processing stage, before or after one or more processing stages, or a combination thereof. Such measurement(s) may be used to identify a discrepancy between a characteristic of a processed object and an expected characteristic and cause a controller to adjust a parameter, automatically, that is known to influence the characteristic and may also be employed to alert a user of such inaccuracies, or malfunction(s) of the 3D printing system resulting in such inaccuracies. By identifying and resolving such inaccuracies, an example embodiment allows for more complex geometries of 3D objects and enables such 3D objects to be fabricated of larger scale and with fidelity.”)
receiving a 3D representation of the physical object; Tobia: Paragraph [0055] (“In the example embodiment, the additive manufacturing system 102 is configured to receive a representation 104 of a desired (i.e., target) 3D object in order to fabricate the desired 3D object 106.”) Tobia: Paragraph [0153] (“The control system 638 may retrieve a particular three-dimensional model 623 in response to user input, and generate machine-ready instructions for execution by the printer 620 to fabricate the corresponding object 624. This may include the creation of intermediate models, such as where a CAD model is converted into an STL model or other polygonal mesh or other intermediate representation, which can in turn be processed to generate machine instructions for fabrication of the object 624 by the printer 620.”) [The received representation or the particular three-dimensional model retrieved to fabricate the corresponding object reads on “receiving a 3D representation of the physical object reads on “receiving a 3D representation of the physical object”.]
modifying the 3D representation of the physical object; Tobia: Paragraph [0058] (“The controller 238 may be configured to identify a discrepancy, such as the atypical deformation 210 or any other suitable discrepancy between a characteristic of the processed object 230 and an expected (i.e., target) characteristic. The discrepancy may be identified based on a value 236 associated with the characteristic, and the controller 238 may adjust a parameter (not shown) based on the value 236. The parameter 240 may be known to influence the characteristic and may be stored in a memory 208 accessed by the system. The parameter, in an adjusted state, may be employed by the system 202 to affect its operating state that, in turn, produces a subsequent processed object 242 with a corresponding characteristic closer to the expected characteristic relative to the characteristic of the processed object 230, the subsequent processed object 242 having been processed by the given processing stage 226.”) Tobia: Paragraph [0067] (“Processing stages, such as debinding and sintering stages may have a processing effect such as material loss and compaction, and a resulting object output from such a processing stage may be significantly smaller than an input object provided to such a processing stage. Such shrinkage may be generally linear in the aggregate, and net shape objects may be usefully scaled up when printing to create a corresponding shape after debinding and sintering that yields the desired (i.e., target) shape for the 3D object in final form. For example, a representation of the 3D object, such as a 3D model of the object, disclosed further below, may be scaled to account for such altering of shape by a processing stage.”) [The altered shape of the representation of the 3D object or the adjusted system to produce a subsequent processed object with the inaccuracy corrected reads on “modifying the 3D representation of the physical object”.]
determining a fabrication strategy for forming the physical object; Tobia: Paragraph [0057] (“The control system 118 may generate machine ready code for execution by the printer 100 to fabricate the object 112 from the three-dimensional model 122. The control system 118 may deploy a number of strategies to improve the resulting physical object structurally or aesthetically. For example, the control system 118 may use plowing, ironing, planning, or similar techniques where the nozzle 110 runs over existing layers of deposited material, e.g., to level the material, remove passivation layers, apply an energy director topography of peaks or ridges to improve layer-to-layer bonding, or otherwise prepare the current layer for a next layer of material.”) [At least one of the deployed strategies to improve the resulting physical object reads on “determining a fabrication strategy for forming the physical object”.]
generating fabrication instructions for formation of the physical object based upon the step of determining the fabrication strategy; and Tobia: Paragraph [0057] [As described above.] Tobia: Paragraph [0100] (“Alternatively or in addition, print parameters that are specific to the printing of a given object may be modified to compensate for the defects. For example, a model of an object (e.g., the 3D model 122 or digital twin 140 described above with reference to FIG. 1) may be modified to incorporate one or more compensations comparable to those described above, directing the printer to print the object with compensation for the defects 691, 692. For example, the object model may be repositioned or reoriented, or the geometry of the model may be modified (e.g., with portions of greater or lesser feedstock deposition) to compensate for the defects 691, 692 when printing the object, resulting in a printed object with greater fidelity to the original model. As an alternative to modifying an object model, the tool path for a printed object (e.g., a G-code instruction set) may be modified in a comparable manner to incorporate compensations for defects of the build plate 605.”) [The generated machine ready code or the modified instructions reads on “generating fabrication instructions”.]
fabricating the physical object based upon the step of generating fabrication instructions. Tobia: Paragraphs [0057], [0058], and [0100] [As described above.]
Regarding claim 2, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Tobia further teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of determining a fabrication strategy for forming the physical object comprises determining material additive toolpaths, Tobia: Paragraph [0100] (“As an alternative to modifying an object model, the tool path for a printed object (e.g., a G-code instruction set) may be modified in a comparable manner to incorporate compensations for defects of the build plate 605.”) material transformative toolpaths, Tobia: Paragraph [0035] (“… responsively controlling applied electrical energy may be used to control liquefaction for a fabrication process using composites as described herein.”) Tobia: Paragraph [0057] (“The control system 118 may deploy a number of strategies to improve the resulting physical object structurally or aesthetically. For example, the control system 118 may use plowing, ironing, planing, or similar techniques where the nozzle 110 runs over existing layers of deposited material, e.g., to level the material, remove passivation layers, apply an energy director topography of peaks or ridges to improve layer-to-layer bonding, ...”) Tobia: Paragraph [0083] (“In one aspect, the post-processing station 306 may employ microwave sintering to accelerate post processing... Where the binder system of the build material is also engineered for thermal debinding, the method may include debinding the green object by applying microwave energy, e.g., using the post-processing station 306 described above.”) and material subtractive toolpaths. Tobia: Paragraph [0064] (“…the use of MIM materials provides a unique advantage when subtractive shaping is performed on a green object after net shape forming but before sintering (or debinding), when the object 112 is relatively soft and workable. This permits quick and easy removal of physically observable defects and printing artifacts before the object 112 is sintered into a metal object. An aspect may instead include tapping threads or otherwise adding features as opposed to subtracting parts. Similarly, an aspect may include combining multiple single green parts into one larger fully solid sintered part.”)
Regarding claim 3, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Tobia further teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of fabricating the physical object based upon the step of generating fabrication instructions comprises performing material additive steps, Tobia: Paragraph [0135] (“The nozzles 679 may, for example, be used to dispense different types of material so that, for example, one nozzle 679 dispenses a composite build material while another nozzle 679 dispenses a support material in order to support bridges, overhangs, and other structural features of the object 624 that would otherwise violate design rules for fabrication with the composite build material. In another aspect, one of the nozzles 679 may deposit a different type of material, such as a thermally compatible polymer or a metal or polymer loaded with fibers of one or more materials to increase tensile strength or otherwise improve mechanical properties of the resulting object 624. In an aspect, two types of supports may be used—(1) build supports and (2) sinter supports—e.g., using different materials printed into the same part to achieve these supports, or to create a distinguishing junction between these supports and the part.”) material transformative steps, Tobia: Paragraph [0035] (“… responsively controlling applied electrical energy may be used to control liquefaction for a fabrication process using composites as described herein.”) Tobia: Paragraph [0057] (“The control system 118 may deploy a number of strategies to improve the resulting physical object structurally or aesthetically. For example, the control system 118 may use plowing, ironing, planning, or similar techniques where the nozzle 110 runs over existing layers of deposited material, e.g., to level the material, remove passivation layers, apply an energy director topography of peaks or ridges to improve layer-to-layer bonding, ...”) Tobia: Paragraph [0083] (“In one aspect, the post-processing station 306 may employ microwave sintering to accelerate post processing... Where the binder system of the build material is also engineered for thermal debinding, the method may include debinding the green object by applying microwave energy, e.g., using the post-processing station 306 described above.”) and material subtractive steps. Tobia: Paragraph [0064] (“…the use of MIM materials provides a unique advantage when subtractive shaping is performed on a green object after net shape forming but before sintering (or debinding), when the object 112 is relatively soft and workable. This permits quick and easy removal of physically observable defects and printing artifacts before the object 112 is sintered into a metal object. An aspect may instead include tapping threads or otherwise adding features as opposed to subtracting parts. Similarly, an aspect may include combining multiple single green parts into one larger fully solid sintered part.”)
Regarding claim 16, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 16 depends. Tobia further teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object comprises the step of identifying features of the 3D representation of the physical object that are susceptible to damage during the step of fabricating the physical object. Tobia: Paragraph [0025] (“The controller may be further configured to identify atypical deformation in the processed object based on the value and adjust the parameter, automatically, based on the atypical deformation identified in order to obviate the atypical deformation in the subsequent processed object.”) Tobia: Paragraph [0058] (“The controller 238 may be configured to identify a discrepancy, such as the atypical deformation 210 or any other suitable discrepancy between a characteristic of the processed object 230 and an expected (i.e., target) characteristic. The discrepancy may be identified based on a value 236 associated with the characteristic, and the controller 238 may adjust a parameter (not shown) based on the value 236. The parameter 240 may be known to influence the characteristic and may be stored in a memory 208 accessed by the system. The parameter, in an adjusted state, may be employed by the system 202 to affect its operating state that, in turn, produces a subsequent processed object 242 with a corresponding characteristic closer to the expected characteristic relative to the characteristic of the processed object 230, the subsequent processed object 242 having been processed by the given processing stage 226.”)
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Gonzalez Martin et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0102130 A1) (“Gonzalez Martin”).
Regarding claim 4, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Tobia does not expressly teach the features of claim 4. However, Gonzalez Martin describes a method of processing a print job in an additive manufacturing system. Gonzalez Martin teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object. Gonzalez Martin: Paragraph [0025] (“An offset may specify, for example by a specified distance or a number of defined voxels (i.e. 3D pixels), an amount to add or remove from a surface of the object (or a perimeter within a layer). For example, an offset distance in an axis may be specified and the object may be eroded or may be dilated (i.e., inflated or enlarged) by this distance, for example by moving the vertices of a mesh in the case that the object model is a mesh model, or adding/subtracting a number of voxels in a vowelized model although other methods of providing an offset may be used in other examples.”) Gonzalez Martin: Paragraph [0026] (“In summary then, to compensate for anticipated deformations a print job describing the three-dimensional objects to be generated may be modified before commencing the build process. The modifications may comprise a scaling, whereby the object is ‘stretched’ or ‘compressed’ along an axis or axes and/or a surface offset operation which comprises applying either an erosion or dilation operation to a surface of the object.”) [The dilation along axes reads on “dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia and Gonzalez Martin before them, to modify the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to compensate for anticipated deformations a print job describing the three-dimensional objects to be generated may be modified before commencing the build process. Gonzalez Martin: Paragraph [0026]
Regarding claim 17, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 17 depends. Tobia does not expressly teach the features of claim 17. However, Gonzalez Martin describes a method of processing a print job in an additive manufacturing system. Gonzalez Martin teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object that is susceptible to damage during the step of fabricating the physical object. Gonzalez Martin: Paragraph [0025] (“An offset may specify, for example by a specified distance or a number of defined voxels (i.e. 3D pixels), an amount to add or remove from a surface of the object (or a perimeter within a layer). For example, an offset distance in an axis may be specified and the object may be eroded or may be dilated (i.e., inflated or enlarged) by this distance, for example by moving the vertices of a mesh in the case that the object model is a mesh model, or adding/subtracting a number of voxels in a vowelized model although other methods of providing an offset may be used in other examples.”) Gonzalez Martin: Paragraph [0026] (“In summary then, to compensate for anticipated deformations a print job describing the three-dimensional objects to be generated may be modified before commencing the build process. The modifications may comprise a scaling, whereby the object is ‘stretched’ or ‘compressed’ along an axis or axes and/or a surface offset operation which comprises applying either an erosion or dilation operation to a surface of the object.”) [The dilation of the model with anticipated deformations reads on “dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object that is susceptible to damage”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia and Gonzalez Martin before them, to modify the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object that is susceptible to damage during the step of fabricating the physical object because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to compensate for anticipated deformations a print job describing the three-dimensional objects to be generated may be modified before commencing the build process. Gonzalez Martin: Paragraph [0026]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Gonzalez Martin, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0173199 A1) (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 5, Tobia and Gonzalez Martin teach all the claimed features of claim 4, from which claim 5 depends. Tobia and Gonzalez Martin do not expressly teach the features of claim 5. However, Kim describes a 3D model. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 4 wherein a magnitude of the step of dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is the same relative to each dilated axis. Kim: Paragraph [0056] (“The 3D space area expansion module 200 calculates voxel lengths of respective axes (the X, Y, and Z axes) of the original 3D object model generated by the 3D object model generation module 100, and based on the voxel length of the axis (e.g., the X axis) among the calculated voxel lengths of the axes (the X, Y, and Z axes), extends the lengths of the remaining axes (e.g., the Y and Z axes), thereby obtaining a 3D space area.” Which reads on “a magnitude of the step of dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is the same relative to each dilated axis”.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia, Gonzalez Martin, and Kim before them, to describe the magnitude of the dilation because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to compensate for anticipated deformations a print job describing the three-dimensional objects to be generated be modified before commencing the build process. Kim: Paragraph [0026]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Gonzalez Martin, and further in view of Diego Gutierrez et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0067225 A1) (“Diego Gutierrez”).
Regarding claim 7, Tobia and Gonzalez Martin teach all the claimed features of claim 4, from which claim 7 depends. Tobia and Gonzalez Martin do not expressly teach the features of claim 7. However, Diego Gutierrez describes a plurality of categorized indications of deviations from expected dimensions for at least one object generated using an additive manufacturing apparatus. Diego Gutierrez teaches:
The method of claim 4 wherein a magnitude of the step of dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is in a range of 0.005 to 10 millimeters, 0.05 to 8.0 millimeters, 0.1 to 5.0 millimeters, or 0.3 to 0.5 millimeters. Diego Gutierrez: Paragraph [0019] (“Geometrical compensation models may specify at least one scaling factor and/or at least one offset value, and in some examples associate a scaling factor and/or offset value with one of three orthogonal (e.g. x, y and z) axes. For example, a scaling factor may be used to multiply dimensions in the direction of an axis by a value, which may be greater than 1 in order to increase the dimensions and less than 1 to reduce the dimensions. An offset value may specify, for example by a specified distance (which may be specified in predefined units, for example standard units such as millimeters or addressable units such as pixels or ‘voxels’ as are discussed in greater detail below), an amount to add or remove from a surface of the object (or a perimeter within a layer). For example, a distance as measured in the direction of a normal from the object surface may be specified and the object may be eroded or dilated (i.e., inflated or enlarged) by this distance. The offset value may therefore be referred to as a surface offset, or a surface offset value. Therefore, in order to compensate for an anticipated deviation in a given axis, a scaling factor and/or offset value may be used.”) Diego Gutierrez: Paragraph [0045] (“FIGS. 3A to 3E depict graphs showing measurements corresponding to each category of dimension A, B, C, D and E respectively. The horizontal axis of each graph corresponds to the expected, or nominal, dimension in millimeters (mm) and the vertical axis corresponds to the measured deviations from expected dimensions in mm. In some examples, the indications of deviations may all relate to a single axis, for example to dimensions aligned with one of the x, y and z axis, and used to determine values for that axis.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia, Gonzalez Martin, and Diego Gutierrez before them, for the step of dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is in a range of 0.005 to 10 millimeters, 0.05 to 8.0 millimeters, 0.1 to 5.0 millimeters, or 0.3 to 0.5 millimeters because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to compensate for an anticipated deviation in a given axis, a scaling factor and/or offset value. Diego Gutierrez: Paragraphs [0019] and [0045]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Podgursky et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0281292 A1) (“Podgursky”).
Regarding claim 8, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. Tobia does not expressly teach the features of claim 8. However, Podgursky describes a three dimensional printing processing image information. Podgursky teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating different portions of the 3D representation of the physical object in different amounts along a same axis of the 3D representation of the physical object. Podgursky: Paragraph [0023] (“In one implementation the processing includes dilating the initial object whereby portions of the initial outer boundary are dilated outwardly in a direction that is normal to the outer boundary at each point on the outer boundary. When there is a narrow channel, boundary portions defining the narrow channel overlap during the dilation. Object portions defining the narrow channel will therefore merge during the dilation. The result is a dilated object. In one embodiment the dilated object has 1.5 to 2.0 times the area of the initial object. After dilation, the dilated object is shrunk or scaled to the area of the initial object. Portions of the object that have merged do not unmerge—and thus, the result is a dilated and scaled object for which any narrow channels are reduced in depth or eliminated. In one embodiment the dilated and scaled object is combined with the initial object to provide a union of the initial object and the dilated and scaled object.”) Podgursky: Paragraph [0028] (“FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram depicting an exemplary printing system 2. In this and other figures, mutually perpendicular axes X, Y and Z will be used. Axes X and Y are lateral axes. In some embodiments X and Y are also horizontal axes. Axis Z is a central axis. In some embodiments Z is a vertical axis. In some embodiments the direction +Z is generally upward and the direction −Z is generally downward.”) Podgursky: Paragraph [0052] (“According to step 94, all portions of the initial outer boundary are dilated outwardly until the total area of the object is increased to 1.5 to 2.0 times the initial area.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia and Podgursky before them, for modifying the 3D representation of the physical object to comprise dilating different portions of the 3D representation of the physical object in different amounts along a same axis of the 3D representation of the physical object because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to produce a dilated and scaled object for which any narrow channels are reduced in depth or eliminated. Podgursky: Paragraphs [0023], [0028], and [0052]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Fu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0415266 A1) (“Fu”).
Regarding claim 9, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. Tobia does not expressly teach the features of claim 9. However, Fu describes in additive manufacturing, forming a part with an inclined surface. Fu teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object comprises identifying nonvertical surfaces in the 3D representation of the physical object. Fu: Paragraph [0077] (“A part with an angle of inclination of 70° is placed in the three-dimensional model processing software according to the predetermined forming position to identify the inclined surface, and the angle of inclination between the inclined surface and the base plate is 70°.”) Fu: Paragraph [0085] (“A part with an angle of inclination of 45° is placed in the three-dimensional model processing software according to the predetermined forming position to identify the inclined surface, and the angle of inclination between the inclined surface and the base plate is 45°.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia, Gonzalez Martin, and Podgursky before them, for modifying the 3D representation of the physical object to comprise dilating different portions of the 3D representation of the physical object in different amounts along a same axis of the 3D representation of the physical object because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to produce a formation of unsupported inclined surface structures by additive manufacturing process with powder feeding/wire feeding. Fu: Paragraph [0008]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Tobia does not expressly teach the features of claim 11. However, Kim describes a 3D model. Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating the 3D representation of the physical object along a Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object. Kim: Paragraph [0056] (“The 3D space area expansion module 200 calculates voxel lengths of respective axes (the X, Y, and Z axes) of the original 3D object model generated by the 3D object model generation module 100, and based on the voxel length of the axis (e.g., the X axis) among the calculated voxel lengths of the axes (the X, Y, and Z axes), extends the lengths of the remaining axes (e.g., the Y and Z axes), thereby obtaining a 3D space area.” Which reads on “a magnitude of the step of dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is the same relative to each dilated axis”.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia and Kim before them, to describe the magnitude of the dilation because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to compensate for anticipated deformations a print job describing the three-dimensional objects to be generated be modified before commencing the build process. Kim: Paragraph [0026]
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Kim and further in view of Diego Gutierrez.
Regarding claim 14, Tobia and Kim teach all the claimed features of claim 11, from which claim 14 depends. Tobia and Kim do not expressly teach the features of claim 14. However, Diego Gutierrez describes a method includes obtaining, by at least one processor, a plurality of categorized indications of deviations from expected dimensions for at least one object generated using an additive manufacturing apparatus. Diego Gutierrez teaches:
The method of claim 11 wherein a magnitude of the step of dilating the 3D representation of the physical object along a Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is in a range of 50 to 500 micrometers or in the range of 0.01 to 1.0 millimeters. Diego Gutierrez: Paragraph [0019] (“Geometrical compensation models may specify at least one scaling factor and/or at least one offset value, and in some examples associate a scaling factor and/or offset value with one of three orthogonal (e.g. x, y and z) axes. For example, a scaling factor may be used to multiply dimensions in the direction of an axis by a value, which may be greater than 1 in order to increase the dimensions and less than 1 to reduce the dimensions. An offset value may specify, for example by a specified distance (which may be specified in predefined units, for example standard units such as millimeters or addressable units such as pixels or ‘voxels’ as are discussed in greater detail below), an amount to add or remove from a surface of the object (or a perimeter within a layer). For example, a distance as measured in the direction of a normal from the object surface may be specified and the object may be eroded or dilated (i.e., inflated or enlarged) by this distance. The offset value may therefore be referred to as a surface offset, or a surface offset value. Therefore, in order to compensate for an anticipated deviation in a given axis, a scaling factor and/or offset value may be used.”) Diego Gutierrez: Paragraph [0022] (“In both these examples, an offset may be applied to the object model with respect to both ends of the dimension under consideration. For example (ignoring scaling factors at present) if the object has a square cross section and modelled objects have been shown to be 1mm smaller than intended, it may be the case that a 1mm offset is to be applied to object model data so that the object, when formed, is closer to the intended size. The offset of 1 mm may in practice be achieved by ‘adding’ a 0.5 mm offset to each of two opposed outer faces in object model data. Alternatively, if an object includes a square hole or hollow and modelled objects have generally had a hole which is larger than expected by 1 mm, a positive offset of 1mm may be applied to object model data to move the faces of the square hole closer together, each moving 0.5 mm.”) Diego Gutierrez: Paragraph [0045] (“FIGS. 3A to 3E depict graphs showing measurements corresponding to each category of dimension A, B, C, D and E respectively. The horizontal axis of each graph corresponds to the expected, or nominal, dimension in millimeters (mm) and the vertical axis corresponds to the measured deviations from expected dimensions in mm. In some examples, the indications of deviations may all relate to a single axis, for example to dimensions aligned with one of the x, y and z axis, and used to determine values for that axis.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia, Kim, and Diego Gutierrez before them, for a magnitude of the step of dilating the 3D representation of the physical object along a Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is in a range of 50 to 500 micrometers or in the range of 0.01 to 1.0 millimeters because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to compensate for an anticipated deviation in a given axis, a scaling factor and/or offset value. Diego Gutierrez: Paragraphs [0019] and [0045]
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Wang et al. (CN 107564023 A) (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 18, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 18 depends. Tobia does not expressly teach the features of claim 18. However, Wang describes a CBCT tool segmentation and modeling. Wang teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating a first feature and a second feature adjacent to the first feature of the 3D representation of the physical object to form a single feature in the 3D representation of the physical object. Wang: Page 8, first paragraph (“In the step 4), expanding the segmentation contour result of the current layer image to be used as the initial contour of the next adjacent layer image specifically comprises: and expanding the segmentation contour of the current layer outwards to form a new contour, wherein the expansion means that the segmentation contour is uniformly biased outwards by a plurality of pixels, each element value in the level set function corresponding to the new contour is a negative value, and each element value in the level set function corresponding to the outside of the new contour is a positive value.”) Wang: Page 12, Claim 1 (“4) repeating the steps 2) -3) to process each layer of image, selecting a layer where the midpoint of a crown in a CBCT two-dimensional image sequence is located as an initial layer during first processing, and expanding the segmentation contour result of the current layer of image to be used as the initial contour of the next adjacent layer of image during each repetition of the steps 2) -3) so as to transfer iteration among the layers and obtain the segmentation contour result of all the layers of images; 5) forming a three-dimensional image by the segmentation contour results of all layers, and reconstructing a three-dimensional model.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia and Wang before them, to modify the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating a first feature and a second feature adjacent to the first feature of the 3D representation of the physical object to form a single feature in the 3D representation of the physical object because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on modeling techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to accurately extract the triangular mesh model of the whole tooth including the tooth root from the CBCT data, and is beneficial to the realization of later-stage correction. Because the iteration and the segmentation between the images are automatic, the efficiency can be greatly improved. Wang, page 9, fifth paragraph.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Hu et al. (CN 114160811A) (“Hu”).
Regarding claim 21, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 21 depends. Tobia does not expressly teach the features of claim 21. However, Hu describes a material forming and processing method. Hu teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object results in performing fewer material subtractive steps while forming a first portion of the physical object than to when forming a second portion of the physical object during the step of fabricating the physical object. Hu: Page 11, fifth full paragraph (“Referring to fig. 3, where one additive layer is stacked on another additive layer in the direction of material stacking, there may be instances where the current additive layer overlaps the next additive layer, and there may be instances where the current additive layer does not overlap the next additive layer. In order to ensure the dimensional accuracy of the part, material reducing machining needs to be performed on the edge of the additive layer, specifically, cutting machining is performed around the edge of the additive layer by using a tool, and a path taken by the tool is a material reducing machining path. If the current additive layer and the next additive layer do not overlap in the material stacking direction, it indicates that the subtractive processing path of the current additive layer is different from the subtractive processing path of the next additive layer.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia and Hu before them, to modify the 3D representation of the physical object results in performing fewer material subtractive steps while forming a first portion of the physical object than to when forming a second portion of the physical object during the step of fabricating the physical object because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to provide a material forming method, device, apparatus, and storage medium, which can improve processing efficiency on the premise of ensuring accuracy of material increasing and decreasing processing. Hu, page 14, second full paragraph.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Tobia in view of Podgursky.
Regarding claim 22, Tobia teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 22 depends. Tobia does not expressly teach the features of claim 22. However, Podgursky describes a three dimensional printing processing image information. Podgursky teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of modifying the 3D representation of the physical object comprises dilating different portions of the 3D representation of the physical object by different amounts along a same axis of the 3D representation of the physical object. Podgursky: Paragraph [0023] (“In one implementation the processing includes dilating the initial object whereby portions of the initial outer boundary are dilated outwardly in a direction that is normal to the outer boundary at each point on the outer boundary. When there is a narrow channel, boundary portions defining the narrow channel overlap during the dilation. Object portions defining the narrow channel will therefore merge during the dilation. The result is a dilated object. In one embodiment the dilated object has 1.5 to 2.0 times the area of the initial object. After dilation, the dilated object is shrunk or scaled to the area of the initial object. Portions of the object that have merged do not unmerge—and thus, the result is a dilated and scaled object for which any narrow channels are reduced in depth or eliminated. In one embodiment the dilated and scaled object is combined with the initial object to provide a union of the initial object and the dilated and scaled object.”) Podgursky: Paragraph [0028] (“FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram depicting an exemplary printing system 2. In this and other figures, mutually perpendicular axes X, Y and Z will be used. Axes X and Y are lateral axes. In some embodiments X and Y are also horizontal axes. Axis Z is a central axis. In some embodiments Z is a vertical axis. In some embodiments the direction +Z is generally upward and the direction −Z is generally downward.”) Podgursky: Paragraph [0052] (“According to step 94, all portions of the initial outer boundary are dilated outwardly until the total area of the object is increased to 1.5 to 2.0 times the initial area.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tobia, Gonzalez Martin, and Podgursky before them, for modifying the 3D representation of the physical object to comprise dilating different portions of the 3D representation of the physical object in different amounts along a same axis of the 3D representation of the physical object because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on additive manufacturing techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to produce a dilated and scaled object for which any narrow channels are reduced in depth or eliminated. Podgursky: Paragraphs [0023], [0028], and [0052]
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 are found to be allowable over the prior art of record and would be considered allowable pending the nonstatutory subject matter rejection under 35 USC 101 rejection given above.
While the prior art shows a 3D representation of the physical object, modifying the 3D representation of the physical object, determining a fabrication strategy for forming the physical object; generating fabrication instructions for formation of the physical object based upon the step of determining the fabrication strategy, and fabricating the physical object based upon the step of generating fabrication instructions (see Tobia et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0329501 A1); Gonzalez Martin et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0102130 A1); Diego Gutierrez et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0067225 A1); Podgursky et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0281292 A1); Kim et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0173199 A1); Fu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0415266 A1); Wang et al. (CN 107564023 A); Hu et al. (CN 114160811A); US Patent Publication No. 2021/0394451 A1 to Lalonde et al.; US Patent Publication No. 2021/0370398 A1 to Preston et al.), the prior art, individually or combined, does not teach or suggest “a magnitude of the step of dilating a feature of the 3D representation of the physical object along at least two of an X, Y, and Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is in a range of eight to ten percent, nine to eleven percent, or five to fifteen percent relative to same axes of the physical object”, as recited in claim 6; “dilating nonvertical surfaces of the 3D representation of the physical object to improve a surface finish of nonvertical surfaces of the physical object during the step of fabricating the physical object”, as recited in claim 10; “a magnitude of the step of dilating the 3D representation of the physical object along a Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is different for different nonvertical surfaces of the 3D representation of the physical object”, as recited in claim 12; “a magnitude of the step of dilating the 3D representation of the physical object along a Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object is greater for surfaces of the 3D representation of the physical object that form a ninety-degree angle with the Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object than for surfaces of the 3D representation of the physical object that form less than ninety-degree angles with the Z-axis of the 3D representation of the physical object”, as recited in claim 13; “removal of a greater depth of material from nonvertical surfaces than from vertical surfaces during the step of fabricating the physical object”, as recited in claim 15; “the step of dilating…results in the formation of the single feature during a material additive step of the step of fabricating the physical object”, as recited in claim 19; and “dilating… results in formation of the first feature and the second feature of the 3D representation of the physical object during a material subtractive step of the step of fabricating the physical object”, as recited in claim 20. These concepts define the present application over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2021/0394451 A1 to Lalonde et al. describes a method for additively manufacturing a composite structure. This method may include receiving from a user a sketch of a cross-section of the composite structure, a dimension of a composite material to be used to additively manufacture the composite structure and a desired height. The method may also include automatically generating a virtual model of the composite structure having a plurality of layers, each with a thickness related to the dimension and the number of the plurality of layers related to the desired height. The method may further include receiving from the user a plurality of different infill patterns for the plurality of layers, and causing an additive manufacturing machine to deposit continuous fibers along segments of the plurality of different infill patterns.
US Patent Publication No. 2021/0370398 A1 to Preston et al. describes in Paragraph [0046] that “multiple nozzles 110 are provided, a second nozzle may usefully provide any of a variety of additional build materials. This may, for example, include other composites, alloys, bulk metallic glass's, thermally matched polymers and so forth to support fabrication of suitable support structures. In one aspect, one of the nozzles 110 may dispense a bulk metallic glass that is deposited at one temperature to fabricate a support structure 113, and a second, higher temperature at an interface to a printed object 112 where the bulk metallic glass can be crystallized at the interface to become more brittle and facilitate mechanical removal of the support structure 113 from the object 112. Conveniently, the bulk form of the support structure 113 can be left in the super-cooled state so that it can retain its bulk structure and be removed in a single piece. Thus in one aspect there is described herein a printer that fabricates a portion of a support structure 113 with a bulk metallic glass in a super-cooled liquid region, and fabricates a layer of the support structure adjacent to a printed object at a greater temperature in order to crystalize the build material 102 into a non-amorphous alloy. The bulk metallic glass particles may thus be loaded into a MIM feedstock binder system and may provide a support. Pure binding or polymer materials (e.g., without any loading) may also or instead provide a support. A similar metal MIM feedstock may be used for multi-material part creation. Ceramic or dissimilar metal MIM feedstock may be used for a support interface material.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights