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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 8/11/2026 have been considered. Claim 1-17
are pending in the application. Examiner has acknowledged the newly added claims 16-17. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections and 35 U.S.C Section 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5/11/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see 35 U.S.C Section 103 Rejection below:
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1-2, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20190134915 A1), Siegal et al (US 10235493 B2), and Stevens et al (US 20170015057 A1), hereinafter Schmidt, Siegel, and Stevens, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a method for modifying surface-based image of a three-dimensional geometric model suitable for the additive manufacturing of a component,
“Described is a computer-implemented method of additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional (3D) part. The method includes obtaining a surface representation of a 3D part in a 3D scene, the surface representation being enclosed inside a bounding volume” – Abstract
NOTE: Schmidt also discloses transforming the surface representation of the 3D model into a volume representation which can be interpreted as modifying the surface-based image of a 3D geometric model, see Par 39, Lines 1-2.
the image data comprising surface data of the model with geometric information about a plurality of surface segments which together form the surface of the model,
“a surface representation of a 3D part is provided in a 3D scene. The surface representation of the 3D part is input data. The surface representation of the 3D part is a geometry that can be a set of points, segments, polygonal faces or more complex elements” – Par 55, Lines 1-6
NOTE: Schmidt teaches a surface representation of a 3D model used as input data. The surface data represents the geometry of the 3D part and can include points, segments, and polygonal faces which would naturally for the surface of the model. This functionally corresponds to image data comprising surface data of the model with geometric information about surface segments forming the surface of a model.
the method comprising the steps: creating voxel grids each comprising a plurality of voxels, wherein each voxel grid comprises and surrounds at least a part of the surface segments,
“In this case, the discretization applies on the working area only, that is, the bounding box of the provided 3D surface is discretized into voxels. The bounding box is subdivided into a grid where each voxel (also referred to as cell) corresponds to a set of coordinates in 3D space.” – Par 54, Lines 6-10
NOTE: Schmidt discloses in Par 61-64 that a surface representation of a 3D part within a 3D scene is provided. The region containing the surface representation is defined by a bounding box that encloses/surrounds the surface. The bounding box is then subdivided into a grid of voxels with each voxel corresponding to a portion of the 3D space. The resulting voxel grid naturally surrounds the portions of the surface representation. This processor that performs this step functionally corresponds to the limiting unit that creates a voxel grid comprising a plurality of voxels, wherein each voxel grid surrounds a part of the surface segment.
Schmidt does not teach assigning an individual index to at least some of the surface segments of the image data, so that the individual index distinguishes each indexed surface segment from all other indexed surface segments of the model by means of its index, and assigning the index of the nearest surface segment to the respective voxel. However, Siegal teaches assigning an individual index to at least some of the surface segments of the image data, so that the individual index distinguishes each indexed surface segment from all other indexed surface segments of the model by means of its index,
“In one embodiment of the present invention, each feature operation in the definition of a solid model and/or surface model assigns unique identifiers (“IDs”) to the new faces created by the operation. The unique identifiers may then be used as references. Each face ID may be represented as a series of integers, although other representations such as strings may also be used. In an embodiment, each ID has at least two elements, one being a reference to the feature to which the face belongs and the second being a unique element assigned for each face created from the feature. The IDs are typically stored as attributes of the faces of a solid model and/or surface model.” – Col 5, Lines 24-35
NOTE: Siegal discloses using a modeling software executed by a CPU, see Col 7, Lines 62-64, to assign unique identifiers (IDs) to each face of a 3D geometric model. The IDs assigned to the faces can be a series of integers or other representations such as strings which corresponds to how the identifiers are defined as: “This index can be, for example, a consecutive number or an individual character string (e.g. an address).”, in applicant’s specifications Pg 4, Lines 9-14. The unique identifiers would naturally allow one of ordinary skill in the art to distinguish each face (surface segment) from all the other surface segments in the model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Siegel to assign an individual index to at least some of the surface segments, so that each indexed surface segment is distinguishable by its index from all other indexed surface segments of the model. One would be motivated to make this combination so that information associated with each surface segment can be identified in an organized manner which makes it easier to reference the particular surface segment that requires further processing.
Schmidt in view of Siegel still does not teach assigning the index of the nearest surface segment to the respective voxel. However, Stevens teaches assigning the index of the nearest surface segment to the respective voxel
“Each voxel is then assigned an array at step 603 to store various parameters. First, a field for the distance to the nearest polygon is provided. Second, a field for recording the identifier of that polygon is included” – Par 51, Lines 1-4
NOTE: Stevens discloses assigning a voxel with the distance of the nearest polygon and an identifier of that polygon. This functionally corresponds to assigning the index of the nearest surface segment. After the combination, the processor executing the instructions to perform the step of assigning a voxel with an identifier if the nearest polygon as taught by Stevens can be added to Schmidt’s system as modified. This combination would then assign a voxel with the identifier as disclosed by Siegel to the nearest polygon (surface segment) to the respective voxel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Stevens to assign the index of the nearest surface segment to the respective voxel. One would be motivated to make this combination to retain the identity of the surface segment associated with each voxel.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 1. Therefore, the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 15 corresponds to the method disclosed in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt in view of Siegel and Stevens teaches the method of claim 1. Schmidt further teaches wherein first voxels, having a same index and/or a same position information, are combined to form a group,
“For instance, the one or more voxels located outside the bounding volume may be associated with a label “outside”. The label “outside” means that associated voxel is not enclosed or does not intersect the surface representation of the 3D part. The voxels that are inside the bounding volume may be initialized with no label, or with a label “inside” which significates that the voxel is enclosed or intersects the bounding volume” – Par 82, Lines 10-17 Schmidt
NOTE: Schmidt teaches that labels are used to group the voxels that are positioned inside and outside a bounding volume. Since some form of index to determine a which surface segment is the closest to the voxel is implied, see claim 1 rejection, then volumes of the same position would also have the same nearest surface segment which would mean that those voxels can be grouped by the same “inside” and “outside” label.
wherein second voxels, have distance information, are treated as individual voxels.
“The way the minimal distance is computed between a voxel and the surface representation of the 3D part is identical for each voxel: for each voxel, the minimal distance of a voxel will be computed from the centroid of the voxel.” – Par 71 Lines 21-24
NOTE: Schmidt teaches that the calculation for the distance is the same, but is done for each individual voxel. Each voxel will carry its own separate distance value independent from the other voxels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to further incorporate Schmidt into group voxels that share the same index and/or position and treat the voxels assigned distance information individually. Grouping regions would yield the predictable result of simplifying the computation and treating the voxels with distance values individually would accurately establish the shape of the 3D surface model.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, Siegel, Stevens, and Ghadai et al (“Multi-Level 3D CNN for Learning Multi-Scale Spatial Features”), hereinafter Ghadai.
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt in view of Siegel, and Stevens teaches the method of claim 1. Schmidt as modified does not teach wherein a plurality of voxel grids of different resolution and/or different sizes are created and the corresponding distance information and/or an index and/or a position information is assigned to the respective voxel depending on the voxel grid in which the voxel is located, at least a first voxel grid and a second voxel grid are defined such that the first voxel grid has a coarser resolution than the second voxel grid and/or is larger than the second voxel grid; and when the first voxel grid is larger than the second voxel grid the second voxel grid lies within the first voxel grid. However, Ghadai further teaches wherein a plurality of voxel grids of different resolution and/or different sizes are created
“The coarse-level voxel grid represents the whole 3D CAD model at a coarse resolution and the fine-level voxel grid represents the boundary of the coarse-level voxel grid at a finer resolution in a hierarchical manner.” – Ghadai Section 2, Par 1
NOTE: Ghadai teaches a coarse-level voxel grid that encompasses the 3D model with a finer-level voxel grid within the coarse-level. This shows a plurality of voxel grids of different sizes and/or resolution. After the combination, the creation of multiple voxel grids of different resolutions and sizes as taught by Ghadai can be used in Schmidt’s method for voxel-based encapsulation of a 3D model. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to use the coarse grids to surround the bulk of the model while using the fine grids to get accurate distances and sharper inside/outside boundaries.
and corresponding distance information and/or an index and/or a position information is assigned to the respective voxel is carried out depending on the voxel grid in which the voxel is located,
“The minimal distance value of each voxel represents the smallest distance that can be measured between a point of a voxel and a position in the 3D space of an element of the input geometry.” – Schmidt Par 71, Lines 10-13
NOTE: After the combination, the calculation of distance information between the voxel and the surface as taught by Schmidt would have to be affected by the different resolutions of the coarse and fine-level voxel grids as taught by Ghadai depending on where the voxel lies. This would also apply to the position and the index information taught by adding Brunton to Schmidt. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to preserve computational cost for voxels that require precise distances by using coarse grids for approximate information and fine grids for areas that require refined computation of the distances.
and at least a first voxel grid and a second voxel grid are defined such that the first voxel grid has a coarser resolution than the second voxel grid and/or is larger than the second voxel grid; and when the first voxel grid is larger than the second voxel grid the second voxel grid lies within the first voxel grid.
“The multi-level voxel representation consists of a coarse voxel grid that contains volumetric information of the 3D object. In addition, each voxel in the coarse grid that contains a portion of the object boundary is subdivided into multiple fine-level voxel grids.” – Ghadai Abstract
NOTE: Ghadai discloses a multi-level representation of voxel grids which comprises a coarse voxel grid that surrounds the 3D object. The coarse voxel grid is subdivided into finer voxel grids. After the combination, Ghadai’s multi-level representation of voxel grids can be used to assign distance information, index, and/or position to the voxels within the voxel grid as taught by Schmidt as modified. This would allow for the low-cost representation of the 3D model for the overall shape of the model and access to precise distance or position information in areas that need it (such as voxels closer to the surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Ghadai to have a plurality of voxel grids of different resolution or size encapsulate the 3D surface model and have the assignment of position, distance, or index information be based on it. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to reduce the computational costs by allowing the bulk of the model to have approximated information and allow areas that are more important, such as the surface, get accurate distance, position, or index information.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, Siegel, Stevens, Ghadai, Brunton et al (US 20220187790 A1) and Gallo (US 20240320913 A1), hereinafter Brunton and Gallo respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt in view of Siegel, Stevens, and Ghadai teach the method of claim 3. Schmidt does not teach wherein only voxels having a distance less than a predetermined maximum distance from the surface are assigned distance information; the maximum distance in the first voxel grid is greater than in the second voxel grid, or the voxels in the first voxel grid are assigned position information and/or an index and no distance information; and each voxel assigned distance information is also assigned at least one piece of position information. However, Brunton teaches
“Sign determination for a respective voxel preferably includes a determination of whether the voxel is located predominantly inside or outside of the primitive(s) (and/or the surface region to which the primitive(s) belong(s)).” – Brunton Par 88
NOTE: Brunton teaches the assignment of position information to determine if a voxel is “inside” or “outside” the surface. After the combination, the classification of position as taught by Brunton can assign the voxels located in the coarse-level voxel grid as taught by Ghadai which can be understood as a first voxel grid. This combination can then be added to Schmidt’s system for voxel-based encapsulation of a 3D surface model.
and each voxel assigned distance information is also assigned at least one piece of position information.
“Sign determination for a respective voxel preferably includes a determination of whether the voxel is located predominantly inside or outside of the primitive(s) (and/or the surface region to which the primitive(s) belong(s)).” – Brunton Par 88
NOTE: After the combination, the position information obtained by Brunton that determines if a voxel is “inside” or “outside” the surface can be assigned to the voxels in the voxel-based encapsulation of a 3D model system as taught by Schmidt. Schmidt also discloses that distance between the voxel and the surface can be calculated and assigned to the voxels which teaches that the voxels that are assigned distance information can also be assigned at least one piece of position information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Brunton and Ghadai to have the first voxel grid’s voxels be assigned with position information and assign voxels that have distance information with at least one piece of position information. One would be motivated to make this combination to specifically select which voxels require the distance information based on their position in order to prevent expensive calculation for every voxel that may not need the accuracy.
Schmidt as modified still does not teach wherein only voxels which have a distance less than a predetermined maximum distance from the surface are assigned distance information. However, Gallo teaches wherein only voxels having a distance less than a predetermined maximum distance from the surface are assigned distance information,
“wherein a minimum distance to the surface of the object is determined for each voxel when the voxel model representing the 3D model is generated, wherein [0017] for each voxel whose minimum distance is below a predetermined threshold value, the distance is stored in the distance attribute,” – Par 16 and 17
NOTE: Predetermined threshold value implies that there is a maximum distance that was set. After the combination, the predetermined threshold for the distance as taught by Gallo can be used in Schmidt’s system for voxel-based encapsulation of a 3D surface to assign distance information if the distance between the voxel and the surface is below that threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Gallo to assign distance information to voxels that have a distance less than the predetermined threshold. One would be motivated to make this combination to preserve memory by only giving distance information to the voxels that are closest to the surface which need the precise distance information.
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, Siegal, Stevens, and Brunton.
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt in view of Siegel and Stevens teach the method of claim 1. Schmidt does not teach creating sectional planes of the model, for an additive manufacturing procedure using the output voxels and the information assigned to the outputted voxels, wherein the model is a modified model. However, Brunton teaches creating sectional planes of the model, for an additive manufacturing procedure using the outputted voxels and the information assigned to the outputted voxels, wherein the model is a modified model.
“Following that, a subsequent number of slices (e.g. subsequent along the z-axis) may be processed to generate associated manufacturing data for building up the object slice-by-slice.” – Par 71, Lines 8-10
NOTE: Schmidt teaches splitting the three-dimensional object into slices in preparation for additive manufacturing. Schmidt also discloses that “The slices may extend in a plane that extends orthogonally to the vertical or z-axis (e.g. an x-y-plane).”, see par 70. The manufacturing data for additive manufacturing are also based on selected voxels, “generate manufacturing data by selecting voxels at which material should be printed to produce the object, … output the manufacturing data to the 3D printer”, see Par 43 and 44. After the combination, the method of creating slices/planes of the model for additive manufacturing as taught by Brunton can be used in Schmidt’s method of voxel-based encapsulation to use the voxels that have been assigned position, distance, and/or index information to create slices for the preparation of additive manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Brunton to use the output voxels with the assigned information to create sectional planes for an additive manufacturing procedure for a modified model. Additive manufacturing is well known in the art for requiring the sectional planes or slices to build objects layer by layer. Using the output voxels will ensure proper geometry during the additive manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt teaches a modification device for modifying surface-based image of a three-dimensional geometric model suitable for the additive manufacturing of a component,
“Described is a computer-implemented method of additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional (3D) part. The method includes obtaining a surface representation of a 3D part in a 3D scene, the surface representation being enclosed inside a bounding volume” – Abstract
NOTE: Schmidt also discloses transforming the surface representation of the 3D model into a volume representation which can be interpreted as modifying the surface-based image of a 3D geometric model, see Par 39, Lines 1-2. It is further disclosed that the program instructions of the method may be implemented as an apparatus or device, see par 53.
the image data comprising surface data of the model with geometric information about a plurality of surface segments which together form the surface of the model,
“a surface representation of a 3D part is provided in a 3D scene. The surface representation of the 3D part is input data. The surface representation of the 3D part is a geometry that can be a set of points, segments, polygonal faces or more complex elements” – Par 55, Lines 1-6
NOTE: Schmidt teaches a surface representation of a 3D model used as input data. The surface data represents the geometry of the 3D part and can include points, segments, and polygonal faces which would naturally for the surface of the model. This functionally corresponds to image data comprising surface data of the model with geometric information about surface segments forming the surface of a model.
the modification device comprising the steps: a data interface designed to receive the image data,
“For instance, the step of providing a surface representation may be carried upon user action, e.g. the user selects a part.” – Par 38, Lines 1-2
NOTE: Schmidt discloses the step of receiving input of the 3D surface model can be done using graphical user interface, see par 39. This corresponds functionally to a data interface since Schmidt’s system requires a way to receive the 3D surface model to be encapsulated by voxels for further processing for additive manufacturing.
a limiting-unit designed to create a number of voxel grids each comprising a plurality of voxels, wherein each voxel grid comprises and surrounds at least a part of the surface segments,
“In this case, the discretization applies on the working area only, that is, the bounding box of the provided 3D surface is discretized into voxels. The bounding box is subdivided into a grid where each voxel (also referred to as cell) corresponds to a set of coordinates in 3D space.” – Par 54, Lines 6-10
NOTE: Schmidt discloses in Par 61-64 that a surface representation of a 3D part within a 3D scene is provided. The region containing the surface representation is defined by a bounding box that encloses/surrounds the surface. The bounding box is then subdivided into a grid of voxels with each voxel corresponding to a portion of the 3D space. The resulting voxel grid naturally surrounds the portions of the surface representation. This processor that performs this step functionally corresponds to the limiting unit that creates a voxel grid comprising a plurality of voxels, wherein each voxel grid surrounds a part of the surface segment.
Schmidt does not teach an index unit design to assign an individual index to at least some of the surface segments, so that each indexed surface segment is distinguishable by its index from all other indexed surface segments of the model. However, Siegal teaches an index unit design to assign an individual index to at least some of the surface segments, so that each indexed surface segment is distinguishable by its index from all other indexed surface segments of the model
“In one embodiment of the present invention, each feature operation in the definition of a solid model and/or surface model assigns unique identifiers (“IDs”) to the new faces created by the operation. The unique identifiers may then be used as references. Each face ID may be represented as a series of integers, although other representations such as strings may also be used. In an embodiment, each ID has at least two elements, one being a reference to the feature to which the face belongs and the second being a unique element assigned for each face created from the feature. The IDs are typically stored as attributes of the faces of a solid model and/or surface model.” – Col 5, Lines 24-35
NOTE: Siegal discloses using a modeling software executed by a CPU, see Col 7, Lines 62-64, to assign unique identifiers (IDs) to each face of a 3D geometric model. The IDs assigned to the faces can be a series of integers or other representations such as strings which corresponds to how the identifiers are defined as: “This index can be, for example, a consecutive number or an individual character string (e.g. an address).”, in applicant’s specifications Pg 4, Lines 9-14. The unique identifiers would naturally allow one of ordinary skill in the art to distinguish each face (surface segment) from all the other surface segments in the model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Siegel to assign an individual index to at least some of the surface segments, so that each indexed surface segment is distinguishable by its index from all other indexed surface segments of the model. One would be motivated to make this combination so that information associated with each surface segment can be identified in an organized manner which makes it easier to reference the particular surface segment that requires further processing.
Schmidt in view of Siegel still does not teach a process-unit designed to assign the index of the nearest surface segment to the respective voxel, a data interface designed to output the voxels with the information assigned to them. However, Stevens teaches a process-unit designed to assign the index of the nearest surface segment to the respective voxel,
“Each voxel is then assigned an array at step 603 to store various parameters. First, a field for the distance to the nearest polygon is provided. Second, a field for recording the identifier of that polygon is included” – Par 51, Lines 1-4
NOTE: Stevens discloses assigning a voxel with the distance of the nearest polygon and an identifier of that polygon. This functionally corresponds to assigning the index of the nearest surface segment. After the combination, the processor executing the instructions to perform the step of assigning a voxel with an identifier if the nearest polygon as taught by Stevens can be added to Schmidt’s system as modified. This combination would then assign a voxel with the identifier as disclosed by Siegel to the nearest polygon (surface segment) to the respective voxel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Stevens to having a processing unit assign the index of the nearest surface segment to the respective voxel. One would be motivated to make this combination to retain the identity of the surface segment associated with each voxel.
Schmidt in view of Siegel and Stevens still does not teach a data interface designed to output the voxels with the information assigned to them. However, Brunton teaches a data interface designed to output the voxels with the information assigned to them
“generate manufacturing data by selecting voxels at which material should be printed to produce the object, … output the manufacturing data to the 3D printer” – Par 43 and 44.
NOTE: Brunton teaches generating manufacturing data using the voxels and outputting the data into the 3D printer which is an example of additive manufacturing. After the combination, the use of voxels to create manufacturing data for additive manufacturing can modify the graphical user interface element of Schmidt’s system for voxel-based encapsulation of a 3D model. This would allow the preparation for additive manufacturing (such as 3D printing) of the 3D surface model with consideration of position, index, and/or distance information assigned to the voxels encapsulating the 3D object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Brunton to use a data interface designed for outputting voxels with the corresponding information assigned to them. One would be motivated to make this combination as it would be a logical next step to use the data interface to output the information assigned to the voxels so that they can be processed for additive manufacturing/3D printing.
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt in view of Siegel, Stevens, and Brunton teaches the device of claim 10. Schmidt as modified further teaches wherein the process-unit is further designed to: determine position information indicating whether the respective voxel lies inside or outside the contours of the model, and assign the position information to the respective voxel
“Sign determination for a respective voxel preferably includes a determination of whether the voxel is located predominantly inside or outside of the primitive(s) (and/or the surface region to which the primitive(s) belong(s)).” – Brunton Par 88
NOTE: Brunton teaches that for each voxel, a sign is determined to label if a voxel is positioned inside or outside of the surface region. It also discloses that a processor is configured perform any of the steps such as executing instructions involving storing topographic characteristics like position/location, see claim 15. After the combination, determining whether the voxel lies inside or outside the surface as taught by Brunton can modify Schmidt’s voxel-based encapsulation of the 3D model. This would create a clear volumetric representation of the 3D surface model for additive manufacturing processing.
and/or determine a distance of the respective voxel to the surface of the model and assign corresponding distance information to the respective voxel.
“The minimal distance value of each voxel represents the smallest distance that can be measured between a point of a voxel and a position in the 3D space of an element of the input geometry.” – Schmidt Par 71, Lines 10-13
NOTE: Schmidt teaches storing the distance between the voxel and the closest surface segment of the 3D model for each voxel.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 17. Therefore, method claim 16 corresponds to the device disclosed in claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, Siegel, Stevens, Brunton and Braunroth (US 20210245432 A1), hereinafter Braunroth.
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt in view of Siegel, and Stevens teaches the method of claim 1. Schmidt does not teach generating control data for a manufacturing device for the additive manufacturing of a component using the outputted voxels and the information assigned to the outputted voxels in a manufacturing process, in which building material is built up in layers in a construction field, comprising a metal powder, is built up in layers in a construction field and selective solidification of the building material takes place between the application of two material layers of the building material by irradiating the building material with at least one energy beam. However, Brunton teaches generating control data for a manufacturing device for the additive manufacturing of a component using the outputted voxels and the information assigned to the outputted voxels in a manufacturing process
“Further described is a method to generate control signals, i.e. manufacturing data, for the additive manufacturing device, wherein control signals are generated based on the selected voxels. Controls signals can e.g. encode information at which voxel of the building space a printing material should be applied, wherein the building space denotes the space comprising all voxels at which printing material can be applied by the additive manufacturing device” – Par 33, Lines 1-8
NOTE: Brunton teaches the voxels are selected to provide control information for an additive manufacturing device. After the combination, the control data based on voxels taught by Brunton can use the voxel with assigned position, distance, and/or index as taught by Schmidt. This would allow the manufacturing device to have relevant position and distance data to use for the additive manufacturing process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Brunton to have the output voxels generate control data for an additive manufacturing device. One would be motivated to make this combination to use the assigned position, index, and/or distance data stored in the voxels as guidance for the additive manufacturing processing. This would give the system an accurate representation of the shape of the 3D model prior to additive manufacturing process.
Schmidt in view of Brunton does not teach in which building material is built up in layers in a construction field, comprising a metal powder, is built up in layers in a construction field and selective solidification of building material takes place between the application of two material layers of building material in that the building material is irradiated with at least one energy beam. However, Braunroth teaches in which building material is built up in layers in a construction field
(“The build region arrangement is typically provided within the process chamber of the apparatus.” – Par 25)
comprising a metal powder
(“A respective build material can be a powdered build material; a powdered build material may comprise at least one of a metal powder, a ceramic powder, or a polymer powder, for instance.” – Par 21, Lines 7-10),
is built up in layers in a construction field
(“By applying an amount of build material in the first and/or second build region, build material layers are formed in the first and/or second build region, which build material layers are to be selectively solidified during operation of the apparatus” – Par 29, Lines 4-7)
and selective solidification of the building material takes place between the application of two material layers of the building material by irradiating the building material with at least one energy beam.
“A first aspect of the invention relates to an apparatus (hereinafter “apparatus”) for additively manufacturing three-dimensional objects, e.g. technical components, by successive selective solidification, i.e. particularly successive selective irradiation-induced solidification, of build material, i.e. particularly build material layers, which can be solidified by an energy beam” – Par 21, Lines 1-7
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Braunroth to have a metal powder building material be built up in layers in a construction field and selective solidification of the metal powder takes place in between two layers which are irradiated with an energy beam. One would be motivated to do this as it is commonly known in the art to be natural step for additive manufacture processing. Using the voxel position, distance, and or index information for the additive manufacturing process helps accurately depict the shape of the model.
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt in view of Siegel, Stevens, and Brunton teach the modification device of claim 10. Schmidt does not teach a control device for a manufacturing apparatus for the additive manufacturing of a component in a manufacturing process in which a building material comprising a metal powder is built up in layers in a construction field and selective solidification of the building material takes place in each case between the application of two material layers of the building material by irradiating the building material with at least one energy beam using an irradiation device, the control device comprising a modification device according to claim 10. However, Brunton teaches
a control device for a manufacturing apparatus for the additive manufacturing of a component in a manufacturing process,
“It is possible that information on the selected voxels are transmitted to the additive manufacturing device, wherein a control unit of the additive manufacturing device determines control signals for one or more print head(s) of the additive manufacturing device.” – Par 33, Lines 14-18
NOTE: Brunton discloses a control unit that determines control instructions for the additive manufacturing process. This can be interpreted as the control device for a manufacturing apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt to incorporate the teachings of Brunton to have a control device for a manufacturing apparatus for the additive manufacturing process. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to have a dedicated unit responsible for the instructions/commands for additive manufacturing.
Schmidt in view of Brunton does not teach in which building material, comprising a metal powder, is built up in layers in a construction field and selective solidification of the building material takes place in each case between the application of two material layers of the building material by irradiating the building material with at least one energy beam using an irradiation device, the control device comprising a modification device according to claim 10. However, Braunroth teaches in which a building material comprising a metal powder
(“A respective build material can be a powdered build material; a powdered build material may comprise at least one of a metal powder, a ceramic powder, or a polymer powder, for instance.” – Par 21, Lines 7-10),
is built up in layers in a construction field
(“By applying an amount of build material in the first and/or second build region, build material layers are formed in the first and/or second build region, which build material layers are to be selectively solidified during operation of the apparatus” – Par 29, Lines 4-7)
and selective solidification of the building material takes place in each case between the application of two material layers of the building material by irradiating the building material with at least one energy beam using an irradiation device, the control device comprising a modification device according to claim 10.
“A respective solidification device can be embodied as or comprise an irradiation device adapted to successively selectively irradiate build material, particularly respective layers of build material applied in a respective build region, with at least one energy beam, e.g. an electron beam or a laser beam.” – Par 22, Lines 13-17
NOTE: Please see rejection of claim 10 for modification device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Braunroth to use metal powder as the building material and perform selective solidification of the building material layers that have been irradiated by an energy beam. One would be motivated to make this combination as it is a well-known step in the additive manufacturing in order to fabricate the 3D surface model.
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt in view of Siegel, Stevens, Brunton, and Braunroth teach the control device for a manufacturing apparatus of claim 11. Schmidt does not teach a manufacturing device for the additive manufacturing of at least one component in an additive manufacturing process comprising at least - a feeding device for applying material layers of building material in a construction field into a process space, - an irradiation device for selectively solidifying building material between the application of two layers of material by irradiation with at least one energy beam, and - a control device according to claim 11. However, Braunroth further teaches a manufacturing device for the additive manufacturing of at least one component in an additive manufacturing process
“A first aspect of the invention relates to an apparatus (hereinafter “apparatus”) for additively manufacturing three-dimensional objects, e.g. technical components,” – Par 21, Lines 1-3
comprising -a feeding device for applying material layers of the building material in a construction field into a process space,
“A first exemplary functional and/or structural device is a build material application device adapted to apply an amount, particularly a specific amount, of build material in at least one build region of a build region arrangement of the apparatus” – Par 22, Lines 4-9
NOTE: Braunroth teaches a “build material application device” responsible for applying a specific amount of build material layers onto the build region for the additive manufacturing process. This is functionally the same as a feeding device that applies the building material in a construction field for additive manufacturing
- an irradiation device for selectively solidifying the building material between the application of two layers of material by irradiation with at least one energy beam.
“A respective solidification device can be embodied as or comprise an irradiation device adapted to successively selectively irradiate build material, particularly respective layers of build material applied in a respective build region, with at least one energy beam, e.g. an electron beam or a laser beam.” – Par 22, Lines 13-17
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt to incorporate the teachings of Braunroth to have a feeding device and irradiation device as part of the manufacturing device for additive manufacturing. One would be motivated to make his combination as it is a well-known step in the art to provide way to apply building material layers and irradiate them with an energy beam for the purposes of additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt in view of Siegel, Stevens, Brunton and Braunroth teaches the method of claim 9. Schmidt does not teach a data set comprising surface-based image data of a model together with control data for controlling a manufacturing device for additive manufacturing, a data set comprising surface-based image data of a model together with control data for controlling a manufacturing device for additive manufacturing, which have been generated according to a method according to claim 9.
“The selection of voxels may be equivalent to and/or result in generating a data set (in particular a set of manufacturing data) comprising or defining the voxels at which material should be added (e.g. printed or solidified). This data set may form the basis of controlling the additive manufacturing device, e.g. by defining coordinates based on which moving and/or printing control instructions are generated.” – Brunton Par 67
NOTE: Please see Schmidt in view of Brunton as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. After the combination, the control data generated from select voxels taught by Brunton can be used with the surface representation of a model as taught by Schmidt to obtain a data set which Brunton further adds to Schmidt in order to fully teach the claim’s limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Brunton to obtain a data set comprising the surface-based image of a model along with control data for additive manufacturing processing. One would be motivated to make this combination to have a unified consistent representation that considers both the geometric surface data and the additive manufacturing instructions.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, Siegel, Stevens, and Braunroth.
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt in view of Siegel, and Stevens teaches the modified image data procedure of claim 1, please see rejection of claim 1. Schmidt does not teach a manufacturing procedure for the additive manufacturing of a component, wherein building material, comprising a metal powder, is built up in layers in a construction field and selective solidification of building material takes place in each case between the application of two material layers of building material in that the building material is irradiated with at least one energy beam. However, Braunroth teaches a manufacturing procedure for the additive manufacturing of a component,
“the present disclosure embraces methods of additively manufacturing three-dimensional objects.” – Par 3, Lines 1-3
Wherein a building material, comprising a metal powder,
(“A respective build material can be a powdered build material; a powdered build material may comprise at least one of a metal powder, a ceramic powder, or a polymer powder, for instance.” – Par 21, Lines 7-10),
is built up in layers in a construction field
(“By applying an amount of build material in the first and/or second build region, build material layers are formed in the first and/or second build region, which build material layers are to be selectively solidified during operation of the apparatus” – Par 29, Lines 4-7)
and selective solidification of the building material takes place in each case between the application of two material layers of the building material in that the building material by irradiating the building material with at least one energy beam
“A first aspect of the invention relates to an apparatus (hereinafter “apparatus”) for additively manufacturing three-dimensional objects, e.g. technical components, by successive selective solidification, i.e. particularly successive selective irradiation-induced solidification, of build material, i.e. particularly build material layers, which can be solidified by an energy beam” – Par 21, Lines 1-7
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schmidt by incorporating the teachings of Braunroth to have a manufacturing process for additive manufacturing that builds metal powder building material in layers and uses selective solidification on the building material irradiated by an energy beam. One would be motivated to make this combination since it is well known in the art to be a natural next step to perform the additive manufacturing process for the modified surface model representation as taught by Schmidt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt in view of Siegel and Stevens teach the method of claim 1. Schmidt does not teach further comprising: determining distance information and/or index and/or position information comprising: - parsing a voxel grid voxel by voxel, determining and assigning the relevant value for each voxel of the voxel grid, and, when determining the distance, determining the shortest distance to the surface of the model starting from each parsed voxel; or - parsing the model surface segment by surface segment and, for the voxels surrounding the respective surface segment, determining and assigning the value relating to each voxel wherein, in the context of a check with respect to a voxel to be checked, the method further comprises checking the voxels surrounding the voxel to be checked to identify whether an index of a surface segment other than the voxel to be checked has been assigned to them and, in the positive case, determining the distance of the voxel to be checked from the other surface segment and determining whether the distance is smaller than the distance from the originally assigned surface segment. None of the prior art searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious to the limitations of claim 5
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt in view of Siegel and Stevens teach the method of claim 1. Schmidt wherein voxels of a voxel grid; and the finest voxel grid are assigned an index of a surface segment, and wherein the method further comprises, for a plurality of points: - selecting a point in a voxel of the voxel grid; - determining the distance of the point from the surface segment to which the relevant index is assigned; and - checking whether the index differs from the index of a neighboring voxel, and if so: - determining the distance of the point from the surface segment to which the relevant index of the neighboring voxel is assigned, and - comparing the distances determined and selecting the smallest distance. None of the prior art searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious to the limitations of claim 6
Regarding claim 7, the claim is dependent on claim 6, which recites allowable subject matter and is therefore also allowable for the same reasons listed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6111. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Y Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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.
/DAVID VAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
