DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,726,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application’s claims are just a broader version the patented claims which can be seen in the table below.
Current Application
Pat. 12,105,500
Patents 11,726,450
1. A method for generating fabrication parameters for fabrication of a part, the method comprising: receiving, from a customer device associated with a customer, a design request for a part to be fabricated by a fabrication process, the design request including a three-dimensional (3D) model file representing the part to be fabricated; generating a feature vector for the part based on the model file; determining a total height of the part to be fabricated; identifying one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated; and generating, as a function of a geometry of the part and a candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations, fabrication parameters for the part to be fabricated, wherein the fabrication parameters include a cost to fabricate the part and estimated completion date.
Claim 6 generating a set of geometric attributes for each of the one or more candidate orientations; and scoring each candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations based on the set of geometric attributes generated for the candidate orientation.
1. A method for generating fabrication parameters for fabrication of a part, the method comprising: receiving, from a customer device associated with a customer, a design request for a part to be fabricated by a fabrication process, the design request including a three-dimensional (3D) model file representing the part to be fabricated; generating a feature vector for the part based on the model file; determining a total height of the part to be fabricated; identifying one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated; generating, as a function of a geometry of the part and a candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations, fabrication parameters for the part to be fabricated, wherein the fabrication parameters include a cost to fabricate the part and estimated completion date; generating a set of geometric attributes for each of the one or more candidate orientations, wherein the geometric attributes comprise a curvature of surfaces parallel to a build plate; and scoring each candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations based on the set of geometric attributes generated for the candidate orientation.
1. A method for generating fabrication parameters for fabrication of a part, the method comprising: receiving, from a customer device associated with a customer, a design request for a part to be fabricated by a fabrication process, the design request including a three-dimensional (3D) model file representing the part to be fabricated; generating a feature vector for the part based on the model file; determining a total height of the part to be fabricated; identifying one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated; generating, as a function of a geometry of the part and a candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations, fabrication parameters for the part to be fabricated, wherein the fabrication parameters include a cost to fabricate the part and estimated completion date; generating a set of geometric attributes for each of the one or more candidate orientations, wherein the geometric attributes comprise the curvature of surfaces perpendicular to a build plate; and scoring each candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations based on the set of geometric attributes generated for the candidate orientation.
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
7
7
6
8
8
7
9
9
8
10
10
9
11. A system for generating a quote for fabrication of a part to be fabricated, the system comprising a computing device configured to: receive, from a customer device associated with a customer, a design request for a part to be fabricated by a fabrication process, the design request including a three-dimensional (3D) model file representing the part to be fabricated; generate a feature vector for the part based on the model file; determine a total height of a plurality of layers of the part to be fabricated; identify one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated; and generate, as a function of the geometry of the part and a candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations, fabrication parameters for the part to be fabricated, wherein the fabrication parameters include a cost to fabricate the part and estimated completion date.
Claim 16 generate a set of geometric attributes for each of the one or more candidate orientations; and score each candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations based on the set of geometric attributes generated for the candidate orientation.
11. A system for generating a quote for fabrication of a part to be fabricated, the system comprising a computing device configured to: receive, from a customer device associated with a customer, a design request for a part to be fabricated by a fabrication process, the design request including a three-dimensional (3D) model file representing the part to be fabricated; generate a feature vector for the part based on the model file; determine a total height of a plurality of layers of the part to be fabricated; identify one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated; generate, as a function of the geometry of the part and a candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations, fabrication parameters for the part to be fabricated, wherein the fabrication parameters include a cost to fabricate the part and estimated completion date; generate a set of geometric attributes for each of the one or more candidate orientations, wherein the geometric attributes comprise a curvature of surfaces parallel to a build plate; and score each candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations based on the set of geometric attributes generated for the candidate orientation.
10. A system for generating a quote for fabrication of a part to be fabricated, the system comprising a computing device configured to: receive, from a customer device associated with a customer, a design request for a part to be fabricated by a fabrication process, the design request including a three-dimensional (3D) model file representing the part to be fabricated; generate a feature vector for the part based on the model file; determine a total height of a plurality of layers of the part to be fabricated; identify one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated; generate, as a function of the geometry of the part and a candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations, fabrication parameters for the part to be fabricated, wherein the fabrication parameters include a cost to fabricate the part and estimated completion date; generating a set of geometric attributes for each of the one or more candidate orientations, wherein the geometric attributes comprise the curvature of surfaces perpendicular to a build plate; and scoring each candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations based on the set of geometric attributes generated for the candidate orientation.
12
12
11
13
13
12
14
14
13
15
15
14
17
17
15
18
18
16
19
19
17
20
20
18
The dependent claims are identical and to save space Examiner has opted not to include each limiation in the chart.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 1. This seems to be an unintentional typographical error. Since claim 16 (and its dependents) is a system claim and claim 1 is a method claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Jones (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0019270).
As to claims 1 and 11, Jones teaches a method for generating fabrication parameters for fabrication of a part, the method comprising: receiving, from a customer device associated with a customer, a design request for a part to be fabricated by a fabrication process, the design request including a three- dimensional (3D) model file representing the part to be fabricated[0048 As shown in FIG. 1, methods 10 include receiving 12 input from a user. For example, the user may provide input to a search system (e.g., search system 60 as shown in FIG. 2 and described further herein). The input may be an input representation of the input part and/or a search query. The input representation and/or the search query may include, and/or may be, a 3D model, a 3D sketch, a 2D model, a 2D sketch, and/or a 2D image of the input part. Such models, sketches, and/or images thus may be referred to as input models, input sketches, and/or input images, respectively. Receiving 12 may include receiving a part signature, a shape metric, a physical property, and/or a physical metric corresponding to attributes to the input part. Receiving 12 may include receiving, constructing, and/or identifying the input 3D model in/from the input. Receiving 12 may include receiving auxiliary information relating to the input representation, the search query, and/or the input part. Receiving 12 may include receiving an input machining feature descriptor. The input machining feature descriptor may include a machining feature of the input part (an input machining feature), a 3D model of the input machining feature, a negative geometry model of the input machining feature, a surface of the input machining feature, a textual description of the input machining feature, a keyword description of the input machining feature, a 2D image of the input machining feature, a 2D sketch of the input machining feature, and/or a 3D sketch of the input machining feature.]; generating a feature vector for the part based on the model file[0038 Shape metrics typically describe and/or are related to local and global geometric attributes, thus describing high resolution and low resolution details of respective 3D models. For example, the shape metric may be in the form of an attribute vector that encodes different geometric attributes (e.g., volume, surface area, number of edges, edge connectivity) along different dimensions of the attribute vector. As another example, the shape metric may encode a series of wavelets and/or Fourier coefficients (e.g., the result of a discrete wavelet and/or Fourier transformation). Further, the shape metric may be invariant under scaling, rotation, and/or translation transformations of the corresponding 3D model. Shape metrics may correspond to and/or encode one or more machining features of the respective part.]; determining a total height of the part to be fabricated; identifying one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated[0048]; and generating, as a function of a geometry of the part and a candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations, fabrication parameters for the part to be fabricated, wherein the fabrication parameters include a cost to fabricate the part and estimated completion date[0028 Machining operations (which also may be called machining stages, forming machine operations, and/or forming machine stages) are units of processing of the part (i.e., workpiece) as it is being formed. Each machining operation includes a sequence of one or more toolpaths that direct the forming machine to deposit, remove, form, and/or shape a workpiece. A machining operation may include associated forming machine and/or tool configurations, operations, and/or processes, for example, cooling configuration, waste management (e.g., ventilation, waste containment), workpiece setup (e.g., transport, orientation, fixturing), tool choice (e.g., tool exchange), and/or tool setup (e.g., orientation, spindle speed, temperature, dispense rate). Machining code that expresses, describes, and/or instructs a machining operation is referred to as machining operation code, 0042 Further, at least one, and optionally each, of the machining features in the machining knowledge database may be associated with at least one of a production cost, a relative production cost, a production time, and a relative production time of the machining feature. The relative production cost and the relative production time are the fractional production cost and time, respectively, of the machining feature relative to the production cost and time, respectively, of the entire formed part. The production time of each machining feature may be determined by calculating the total time to execute the machining code corresponding to the machining feature. The time to execute the code may be based at least in part upon the tool trajectories (e.g., feeds and speeds of the forming machine). The production cost of each machining feature may be determined by multiplying the actual cost of forming the formed part by the relative production time of the machining feature (i.e., the production time of the machining feature divided by the production time of the entire formed part)., 0060 Generating 18 may include ranking and filtering, i.e., the search result may be ranked and filtered. Ranking and filtering may be based at least in part upon a similarity score, a relevancy score (a measure of likely value of the result), and/or search criteria (such as the input). The relevance score may be influenced by prior search results, date of production of the part corresponding to the stored 3D model, and/or correspondence with search criteria. Ranking and filtering may include at least one of ordering the search result (and/or a subset of the search result) and selecting similar stored 3D models to include in the search result.].
As to claims 2 and 12, Jones teaches wherein the feature vector comprises the height, a length, and a width for the part to be fabricated[0038].
As to claims 3 and 13, Jones teaches wherein the feature vector comprises the height, length, and width of the part to be fabricated along coordinate axes of the 3D model file[0038, 0063].
As to claims 4 and 14 , Jones teaches wherein the identifying one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated is based on the feature vector[0028, 0038].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-7, 10, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0019270) in view of Lynch August (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0250810), herein Lynch.
Jones teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach all of the invention including claims 5-7, 10, 15-17 and 20. However, these are obvious variations as taught by Lynch below.
As to claims 5 and 15, Lynch teaches wherein the identifying one or more candidate orientations for the part to be fabricated comprises: performing a heuristic analysis of the feature vector; and identifying the one or more candidate orientations based on the heuristic analysis [0029-0030, 0033-35] (see table 2 for example).
As to claims 6 and 16, Lynch teaches further comprising: generating a set of geometric attributes for each of the one or more candidate orientations; and scoring each candidate orientation of the one or more candidate orientations based on the set of geometric attributes generated for the candidate orientation[0029-0030, 0033-35] (see table 2 for example).
As to claims 7 and 17, Lynch teaches wherein the scoring each candidate orientation is performed based on a weighted combination of the geometric attributes [0030, 0033-0035, 0039-0048, 0075-0081].
As to claims 10 and 20, Lynch teaches further comprising selecting one of the one or more candidate orientations based on the scores of the candidate orientations [0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Lynch into the system and methods of Jones. The motivation to combine is that Lynch teaches build scores can be used to predict which orientation will provide for good surface quality[0005].
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0019270) in view of Lynch August (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0250810), herein Lynch in view of Gain (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0361878).
Jones in view of Lynch teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach all of the invention including claims 9 and 19. However, these are obvious variations as taught by Gain below.
As to claims 8 and 18, wherein weights of the weighted combination are determined by a machine learning model [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Gain into the system and methods of Jones modified by Lynch. The motivation to combine is that Gain teaches he system provides an efficient, cost effective solution that requires minimal manual intervention that saves on manual effort and time of personnel [0071].
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0019270) in view of Lynch August (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0250810), herein Lynch in view of Li (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0085882).
Jones in view of Lynch teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach all of the invention including claims 9 and 19. However, these are obvious variations as taught by Li below.
As to claims 9 and 19, Li teaches wherein the geometric attributes comprises the height of the part when the part is resting on a build plate [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Li into the system and methods of Jones modified by Lynch. The motivation to combine is that Li teaches considering the total height decisions can be made that reduce build time [0018].
Other Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vittotow (U.S. Pat. 10,307,957) teaches depositing material on a curved surface.
Eramian (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0167307) teaches price setting mechanisms for 3D printing.
Lee (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0159012) teaches estimating the cost of portions of the 3D printing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights