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 .
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Amendment
35 USC 112(b). The amendments to claim 3 have overcome the rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/19/026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103. Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over BORING (US 2021/0101339 A1) in view of GUPTA (US 2017/0057170 A1) are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered. The rejection of amended claims 1-10 is provided below.
35 USC 103. Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over BORING (US 2021/0101339 A1) in view of GUPTA (US 2017/0057170 A1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “cited paragraphs of Gupta ([0025] - [0042]) discuss 3D cameras for visual monitoring and calibration purposes, not sensors that measure motor input current or rotational speed. Because the Examiner has failed to establish that the prior art teaches the specific motor diagnostic sensors recited in claim 13, the rejection of claim 13 and its dependent claims should be withdrawn” (Remarks, Pg 9). This is not persuasive. Gupta discloses that the computing device 100 includes capturing and sensing components (221) and sensor arrays (¶0025). Computing device 100 may further include I/O sources 108 having any number and type of capturing/sensing components 221 (¶0033). Capturing and sensing components fits this broad group and reads wherein the motor diagnostic sensor is an input current sensor.
Accordingly, based upon the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/19/2026 is maintained. The rejection of amended claim 13 is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORING (US 2021/0101339 A1) in view of GUPTA (US 2017/0057170 A1) and in further view of RAKSHIT (US 2021/0072725 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, BORING discloses a 3D-printing system that may withstand multiple or repetitive shock while transporting or during its usages in harsh geographical landscape (ruggedized 3D printing system) ([0006]).
BORING discloses a 3D printing system 10 wherein casing member 300 may be a rigid and firm structure made of thick metals using brackets and frames which makes the 3D printing system 10 robust, durable, and safe for the transportation in harsh geographical landscapes (outer enclosure including a water and impact resistant body) (Fig 2 and [0057]); a 3D printing module 100 within casing member 300 (print chamber within the outer enclosure) (Fig 2 and ¶0057); at least one shock absorber or suspension system 400 supports the 3D printing module 100 from all the sides and may include shock absorbers 420 that may be a passive shock absorber or suspension member having a rubber bumpers arrangement and may include an active shock absorber or suspension member having a pneumatic arrangement or a hydraulic (a passive suspension system located between the print chamber and the outer enclosure; an active suspension system configured to provide adjustable suspension support for the print chamber) (Fig 2 and ¶0057-0064); and a camera 430 connected to the internet and monitors the 3D printing, wherein video feed obtained by camera 430 can be used to remote diagnosing, artificial intelligence for predicting 3D print failures, and alerts on printer status (one or more internal and/or external sensors configured to monitor, in real time, various operational parameters of the printing system, its environment, and/or objects being printed; said one or more internal and/or external sensors including a print diagnostic sensor) (Fig. 5 and ¶0007,0057,0065,0071-0072).
BORING does not explicitly disclose a vertically adjustable internal print bed nor adjusting the vertical position of the internal print bed.
BORING does disclose that 3D printing system 10 may include a motion control arrangement 130 which enables the extruder to move along X, Y and Z axes in relation to printing bed 120 (internal print bed) (Fig. 3 and [0059]). The motion control arrangement 130 which includes a plurality of leadscrews 131 for the Z-axis (vertical) movement (Fig. 3 and [0059]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify 3D printing system disclosed in BORING by providing leadscrews to the printing bed (internal print bed) disclosed in BORING in order to provide Z-axis movement and adjusting the vertical position of the printing bed disclosed in BORING in order to provide relative vertical displacement between the extruder and printing bed ([0059]).
BORING does not disclose wherein the one or more internal and/or external sensors includes a shock wave detector; a modular electronics unit including a processor configured to adjust print operating parameters of the printing system based on data received from the one or more internal and/or external sensors.
In the same field of endeavor, facilitating intelligent calibration and efficient performance of three-dimensional (3D) printers, GUPTA discloses a computing device 100 (modular electronics unit) includes one or more processors 102 (processor) employing a 3D printer qualification and performance mechanism 110 to facilitate real-time and dynamic qualification and performance of 3D printer ([0019]-[0021]). Gupta discloses that the computing device 100 includes capturing and sensing components (221) and sensor arrays (¶0025). Computing device 100 may further include I/O sources 108 having any number and type of capturing/sensing components 221 (¶0033). Capturing and sensing components fits this broad group and reads wherein the motor diagnostic sensor is an input current sensor.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printing system disclosed in BORING by including the computing device (modular electronics unit) comprising one or more processors (processor) configured to adjust print operating parameters of the printing system bases on data received from one or more of cameras as disclosed in GUPTA in the system disclosed in BORING in order to provide real-time feedback such that the 3D printer is calibrated prior to printing an object, configured to monitor during printing, and configured to detect any potential errors from unexpected vibrations or movements that can obstruct or even prematurely end the printing process (GUPTA, ¶0025-0047).
BORING in view of GUPTA does not explicitly disclose a shock wave detector.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing, RAKSHIT discloses a computer program product for identifying and rectifying one or more defects on a structure ([0003]). A corrective 3D printing program 110a, 110b may utilize an external technological device and/or sensors to analyze and/or evaluate the structure ([0042]). The external computing device may analyze the structure to identify any defects and/or cracks in the structure by utilizing image analysis and collect data on the defects and/or cracks on the structure (i.c., defect data), which may have occurred during the 3D printing of the structure ([0042]). The corrective 3D printing program 110a, 110b may utilize external sound wave sensors (shock wave detector) to measure the distance to a structure and/or the shape and/or size of a structure by using sound waves which may include sound detector, such as a microphone, and an oscillating field that creates a mechanical or sound wave that propagates to and/or through the structure at a specific frequency, and may then be bounced back ([0044]).
The sound wave sensors disclosed in RAKSHIT read upon the claimed shock wave detector as evidenced by REVIER (US2019/0123711A1), which discloses that phonon devices 110, 111 may be various forms of microphones, speakers, emitters, detectors, etc., such as a microelectromechanical system vibration sensor device, and may be designed to detect high frequency vibration and shock waves (REVIER, [0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printing system disclosed in BORING in view of GUPTA by substituting the one or more of cameras (shock wave detector) configured to detect defects as disclosed in GUPTA with the sound wave sensors (shock wave detector) configured to detect defects as disclosed in RAKSHIT since the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143(B).
BORING in view of GUPTA and RAKSHIT do not explicitly a modular electronics unit including a processor configured to adjust print operating parameters of the printing system, including temporarily pausing a print operation, based on data received from the one or more internal and/or external sensors.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printing system and method disclosed in BORING in view of GUPTA and RAKSHIT such that the computing device (modular electronics unit) one or more processors (processor) disclosed in GUPTA is configured to adjust print operating parameters based on data received from the sound wave sensors (shock wave detector) disclosed in RAKSHIT including temporarily pausing a print operation, based on data received from the one or more internal and/or external sensors in order to identify and rectify one or more defects on a structure (RAKSHIT, [0003], [0042], [0044]).
Regarding claims 3- 5, as applied to claim 1, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit teach a system wherein the processor is configured to temporarily pause in response to a flaw being detected based on data obtained; wherein the processor is configured to consult a minimum print quality threshold set by the operator or described in a part file technical data sheet; wherein the processor is configured to determine that the print will not meet the minimum print quality threshold and automatically pause the print operation (Gupta, ¶0015,0049,0052)
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit teach a ruggedized 3D printing system further comprising a printer enclosure within the outer enclosure, wherein the print chamber is located within the printer enclosure (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit do not explicitly disclose wherein the modular electronics unit is mounted between the printer enclosure and the outer enclosure.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to the 3D printing system and method disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit by mounting the computing device (modular electronics unit) disclosed in GUPTA between the outer enclosure and the printer enclosure disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit do not explicitly disclose wherein the internal print bed is supported and guided for vertical movement by a plurality of rods located outside the print chamber.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printing system disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit by disposing the plurality of leadscrews for the Z-axis (vertical) movement disclosed in BORING outside of the 3D printing module (print chamber) disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 11, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit teach a ruggedized 3D printing system further comprising wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the climate condition sensor, and the climate condition sensor is a temperature sensor (Gupta, ¶0055,0065-0066).
Regarding claims 13-16, as applied to claim 11, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit teach a ruggedized 3D printing system further comprising herein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the motor diagnostic sensor, and the motor diagnostic sensor is one of an input current sensor and a rotational speed sensor; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the print diagnostic sensor and the print diagnostic sensor is a 3D visual or infrared imaging device for determining quality; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the 3D infrared imaging device, and the 3D imaging device is configured to actively monitor progress and quality of a 3D object being printed; and wherein the 3D infrared imaging device is configured to scan parts (Gupta, ¶0025-0042).
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 11, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit teach a ruggedized 3D printing system further comprising a printer enclosure within the outer enclosure, wherein the print chamber is located within the printer enclosure (Fig 4).
Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit do not explicitly disclose wherein the internal print bed is supported and guided for vertical movement by a plurality of rods located outside the print chamber.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printing system disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit by disposing the plurality of leadscrews for the Z-axis (vertical) movement disclosed in BORING outside of the 3D printing module (print chamber) disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORING (US2021/0101339A1) in view of GUPTA (US2017/0057170A1) and in further view of RAKSHIT (US 2021/0072725 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, and in further view of SALASOO (US2020/0242496A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to operate through sensor fusion machine learning algorithms.
In the same field of endeavor, determining a quality score for a part manufactured by an additive manufacturing machine based on build parameters and sensor data without extensive physical testing of the part ([0001]), SALASOO discloses a quality score generator 140 receives sensor data 130 from the additive manufacturing machine, the nominal build file 120 for the part being produced, and reference data 250 derived from testing of built parts (Fig. 2 and [0035]). The sensor data 130 (sensor fusion) and nominal build file 120 are input to a machine learning algorithm 310 (machine learning algorithm) which is trained to produce a quality score for a built part ([0035]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printing system disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit by programing the processors (processor) disclosed in GUPTA to obtain sensor data for a machine learning algorithm as disclosed in SALASOO in order to produce a quality score for a built part (SALASOO, [0035]).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORING (US2021/0101339A1) in view of GUPTA (US2017/0057170A1) and in further view of RAKSHIT (US 2021/0072725 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, and in further view of ZALEWSKI (US2015/0122577A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit do not explicitly disclose wherein the passive suspension system includes one or more tuned mass dampeners.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, tuned mass dampeners (See MPEP 2141.01(a)), ZALEWSKI discloses that a tuned mass damper (one or more tuned mass dampeners) dissipates the acoustic energy of the excited air (mitigating external shock or vibrations with one or more tuned mass dampeners) ([0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printing system disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit by adding the tuned mass damper disclosed in ZALEWSKI to the shock absorber or suspension system (passive suspension system) disclosed in BORING in order to dissipate the acoustic energy of excited air (shock wave) (ZALEWSKI, [0032]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORING (US2021/0101339A1) in view of GUPTA (US2017/0057170A1) and in further view of RAKSHIT (US 2021/0072725 A1), as applied to claims 7 and 11, respectively, and in further view of GJOVIK (US2020/0254689A1).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 7, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit do not explicitly disclose wherein the print chamber further includes a top having bellows configured to provide thermal insulation to the print chamber and reduce airflow in and out of the print chamber.
In the same field of endeavor, a machine for producing an additive printed part, GJOVIK discloses that a machine 10 includes a print head 12 that is attached to a gantry 14, and a frame 16 which supports side walls 18 that define an interior space 20 of the machine 10, which prevents contamination and controls the temperature of the additive printed part 30. (Figs. 1-2 and [0031]-[0032]). Bellows 26A, 26B are attached at one end to the gantry 14 and at the opposite end to one of the side walls 18 (bellows at the top of the print chamber; bellows configured to provide thermal insulation to the print chamber and reduce airflow) (Figs. 1-2 and [0031]-[0032]). The side walls 18, the bellows 26, 27 and the build table 22 define a build volume 28 within which an additive printed part 30 will be created (Figs. 1-2 and [0031]-[0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to the 3D printing system and method disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit by adding bellows disposed on the top of the interior space of the machine (print chamber) as disclosed in GJOVIK to the 3D printing module (print chamber) disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit to prevent contamination and control the temperature of the additive printed part (GJOVIK, [0031]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 11, Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit teach a ruggedized 3D printing system further comprising a printer enclosure within the outer enclosure, wherein the print chamber is located within the printer enclosure (Boring, see Fig. 4).
Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit do not explicitly disclose wherein the print chamber further includes a top having bellows configured to provide thermal insulation to the print chamber and reduce airflow in and out of the print chamber.
In the same field of endeavor, a machine for producing an additive printed part, GJOVIK discloses that a machine 10 includes a print head 12 that is attached to a gantry 14, and a frame 16 which supports side walls 18 that define an interior space 20 of the machine 10, which prevents contamination and controls the temperature of the additive printed part 30. (Figs. 1-2 and [0031]-[0032]). Bellows 26A, 26B are attached at one end to the gantry 14 and at the opposite end to one of the side walls 18 (bellows at the top of the print chamber; bellows configured to provide thermal insulation to the print chamber and reduce airflow) (Figs. 1-2 and [0031]-[0032]). The side walls 18, the bellows 26, 27 and the build table 22 define a build volume 28 within which an additive printed part 30 will be created (Figs. 1-2 and [0031]-[0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to the 3D printing system disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit by adding bellows disposed on the top of the interior space of the machine (print chamber) as disclosed in GJOVIK to the 3D printing module (print chamber) disclosed in Boring in view of Gupta and Rakshit to prevent contamination and control the temperature of the additive printed part (GJOVIK, [0031]-[0032]).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,620 B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-10, the limitations recited in claims 1-8 of the reference patent disclose a similar apparatus.
Regarding claims 11 and 17-20, the limitations recited in claims 1-5 and 7-8 of the reference patent disclose a similar apparatus.
Claims 3-5 and 12-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,620 B2 (reference patent), as applied to claim 1 and 11, in view of Gupta (US 2017/0057170 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 12-16, as applied to claims 1 and 11, the limitations recited in claims 1-8 of the reference patent disclose a similar apparatus.
The reference patent does not explicitly teach a ruggedized 3D printing system wherein the processor is configured to temporarily pause in response to a flaw being detected based on data obtained from, e.g., computer vision, a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor or an accelerometer; wherein the processor is configured to consult a minimum print quality threshold set by the operator or described in a part file technical data sheet; wherein the processor is configured to determine that the print will not meet the minimum print quality threshold and automatically pause the print operation; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the climate condition sensor, and the climate condition sensor is one of a temperature sensor, a barometric pressure sensor, and a humidity sensor; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the motor diagnostic sensor, and the motor diagnostic sensor is one of an input current sensor and a rotational speed sensor; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the print diagnostic sensor and the print diagnostic sensor is one of a filament parameter sensor; a 3D visual or infrared imaging device for determining quality; and a location sensor for producing GPS data; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the 3D infrared imaging device, and the 3D imaging device is configured to actively monitor progress and quality of a 3D object being printed; nor wherein the 3D infrared imaging device is configured to scan parts.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems Gupta teaches a known technique of a system wherein the processor is configured to temporarily pause in response to a flaw being detected based on data obtained from, e.g., computer vision, a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor or an accelerometer; wherein the processor is configured to consult a minimum print quality threshold set by the operator or described in a part file technical data sheet; wherein the processor is configured to determine that the print will not meet the minimum print quality threshold and automatically pause the print operation; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the climate condition sensor, and the climate condition sensor is one of a temperature sensor, a barometric pressure sensor, and a humidity sensor; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the motor diagnostic sensor, and the motor diagnostic sensor is one of an input current sensor and a rotational speed sensor; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the print diagnostic sensor and the print diagnostic sensor is one of a filament parameter sensor; a 3D visual or infrared imaging device for determining quality; and a location sensor for producing GPS data; wherein said one or more internal and/or external sensors includes the 3D infrared imaging device, and the 3D imaging device is configured to actively monitor progress and quality of a 3D object being printed; and wherein the 3D infrared imaging device is configured to scan parts (¶0015,0025-0042,0049,0052,0055,0065-0066).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in the reference patent by applying the known technique disclosed in Gupta to the modular electronics unit disclosed in the reference patent with predictable results and resulting in an improved system. MPEP 2143(D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BECKMAN (US2020/0171750A1) discloses a system and method wherein a customer might have a three-dimensional item created by an additive manufacturing platform ([0031]). The additive manufacturing platform 1760 can communicate with the three-dimensional printer 1780 at to initiate a printing process ([0069]). Each step of the transaction may be recorded in the secure, distributed transaction ledger 1790 ([0069]). When created, the completed item may be provided to the customer ([0069]). Different types and/or amounts of information might be recorded in the secure, distributed ledger 1790 ([0073]). Information about a payment, a quality review process or result, etc. might be stored via a secure distributed ledger ([0073]). However, Beckman does not integrate the payment (automated or semi-automated pay-by-print system) with the quality review process (quality assurance system) that based on a generated score from print quality report.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights