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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 filed on 01/08/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 02/03/2025 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/08/2025 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 01/08/2025 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “a low energy mode” is repeated twice, once in line 4 and once in line 5. For the purpose of examination: “a low energy mode” in claim 2 line 5 will be interpreted as “the low energy mode.”
In claim 12, “a low energy mode” is repeated twice, once in line 4 and once in line 5. For the purpose of examination: “a low energy mode” in claim 2 line 5 will be interpreted as “the low energy mode.”
Claim Interpretation
The disclosure uses the term “build platen” which is not defined. For the purpose of examination: “Build platen” will be interpreted as “build plate.”
The disclosure uses the term “push-pulpreg” which is not defined. For the purpose of examination: “Push-pulpreg” will be interpreted as “a material useful in push-pultrusion.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 12, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the determined at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 5 which is indefinite. In claim 2, “an eigenvector or eigenvalue” is recited in line 3 followed by the recitation of “at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 4. It is unclear whether “the determined at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 5 is referring to “an eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 3 or “at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 4. If applicant intends “an eigenvector or eigenvalue” and “at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” to refer to the same thing then applicant should use consistent language, otherwise applicant should use language such as “first” or “second” to refer to different instances. For the purpose of examination: “an eigenvector or eigenvalue” in claim 2 line 3 will be interpreted as being the same as “at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in claim 2 line 4.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a 3D print setting” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “a 3D print setting” is the same as “a 3D print setting” from claim 1 line 11, a 3D print setting from “a set of 3D print settings” in claim 3 line 3 or a 3D print setting within “one or more 3D print settings” in claim 3 line 6. If applicant intends to refer to the same 3D print setting then applicant should use consistent language, otherwise applicant should use language such as “first” or “second” to refer to different instances. For the purpose of examination: “a 3D print setting”, “the set of 3D print settings” and “one or more 3D print settings” will be interpreted as the same “one or more 3D print settings.”
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “a 3D print setting” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “a 3D print setting” is the same as “a 3D print setting” from claim 1 line 11, a 3D print setting from “a set of 3D print settings” in claim 3 line 3 or a 3D print setting within “one or more 3D print settings” in claim 3 line 6. If applicant intends to refer to the same 3D print setting then applicant should use consistent language, otherwise applicant should use language such as “first” or “second” to refer to different instances. For the purpose of examination: “a 3D print setting”, “the set of 3D print settings” and “one or more 3D print settings” will be interpreted as the same “one or more 3D print settings.”
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “a 3D print setting” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “a 3D print setting” is the same as “a 3D print setting” from claim 1 line 11, a 3D print setting from “a set of 3D print settings” in claim 3 line 3 or a 3D print setting within “one or more 3D print settings” in claim 3 line 6. If applicant intends to refer to the same 3D print setting then applicant should use consistent language, otherwise applicant should use language such as “first” or “second” to refer to different instances. For the purpose of examination: “a 3D print setting” will be interpreted as “one or more 3D print settings.”
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the determined at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 5 which is indefinite. In claim 2, “an eigenvector or eigenvalue” is recited in line 3 followed by the recitation of “at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 4. It is unclear whether “the determined at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 5 is referring to “an eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 3 or “at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in line 4. If applicant intends “an eigenvector or eigenvalue” and “at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” to refer to the same thing then applicant should use consistent language, otherwise applicant should use language such as “first” or “second” to refer to different instances. For the purpose of examination: “an eigenvector or eigenvalue” in claim 2 line 3 will be interpreted as being the same as “at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue” in claim 2 line 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “a 3D print setting” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “a 3D print setting” is the same as “a 3D print setting” from claim 11 line 5, a 3D print setting from “a set of 3D print settings” in claim 13 line 3 or a 3D print setting within “one or more 3D print settings” in claim 13 line 6. If applicant intends to refer to the same 3D print setting then applicant should use consistent language, otherwise applicant should use language such as “first” or “second” to refer to different instances. For the purpose of examination: “a 3D print setting”, “the set of 3D print settings” and “one or more 3D print settings” will be interpreted as the same “one or more 3D print settings.”
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “a 3D print setting” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “a 3D print setting” is the same as “a 3D print setting” from claim 11 line 5, a 3D print setting from “a set of 3D print settings” in claim 13 line 3 or a 3D print setting within “one or more 3D print settings” in claim 13 line 6. If applicant intends to refer to the same 3D print setting then applicant should use consistent language, otherwise applicant should use language such as “first” or “second” to refer to different instances. For the purpose of examination: “a 3D print setting”, “the set of 3D print settings” and “one or more 3D print settings” will be interpreted as the same “one or more 3D print settings.”
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “a 3D print setting” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “a 3D print setting” is the same as “a 3D print setting” from claim 11 line 5, a 3D print setting from “a set of 3D print settings” in claim 13 line 3 or a 3D print setting within “one or more 3D print settings” in claim 3 line 6. If applicant intends to refer to the same 3D print setting then applicant should use consistent language, otherwise applicant should use language such as “first” or “second” to refer to different instances. For the purpose of examination: “a 3D print setting” will be interpreted as “one or more 3D print settings.”
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woytowitz et. al. (US 20200156323 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Woytowitz discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory, ([0008] “In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a system (e.g., computer-implemented system) for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, comprising: computer memory configured to store printing instructions comprising a tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object; and one or more computer processors operatively coupled to the computer memory,…”) wherein the at least one memory stores computer-readable instructions ([0008]: “wherein the one or more computer processors can be individually or collectively programmed to:…”)which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processor to: receive design data corresponding to an object; ([0008]: “(a) process a computer model of the 3D object to generate a strength or stress profile of the computer model;”) compute, based on the received design data, stiffness information of the object; ([0008]: “(a) process a computer model of the 3D object to generate a strength or stress profile of the computer model; (b) use at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate the tool path for printing the 3D object;”; [0048] “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled.”) determine a fundamental deformation shape, based on the stiffness information; and ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”; “The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”; [0058] “It can also optimize the orientation of the material being deposited to minimize deformation and stresses in the object based on the loading requirements.”, where displacement is deformation) determine a 3D print setting for printing the object, based on the determined fundamental deformation shape. ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”; “The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”; [0058] “It can also optimize the orientation of the material being deposited to minimize deformation and stresses in the object based on the loading requirements.”; [0007] “(b) using at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object; (c) simulating printing of the 3D object using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object; (d) analyzing the simulated 3D object to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold; and (e) if the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, generating printing instructions comprising the tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.”, where displacement is deformation).
Regarding claim 3, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the determining of the 3D print setting for printing the object ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”) includes: computing, for each 3D print setting within a set of 3D print settings for printing the object, an internal mechanical state of the object, ([0048] “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled.”; [0049]: “The structural analysis provided by the present disclosure may be suitable for analyzing complex structures or complex material and mechanical properties.”, where a set of 3D print settings used for structural analysis includes only internal mechanical states) based on the determined fundamental deformation shape and the respective 3D print setting; ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”; “The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”; [0058] “It can also optimize the orientation of the material being deposited to minimize deformation and stresses in the object based on the loading requirements.”; [0007] “(b) using at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object; (c) simulating printing of the 3D object using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object; (d) analyzing the simulated 3D object to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold; and (e) if the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, generating printing instructions comprising the tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.”, where displacement is deformation) and determining one or more 3D print settings based on the computed internal mechanical states, ([0047]: “Next, an initial finite element analysis and topology optimization 102 may be performed. Finite element analysis (FEA) can be used to calculate the structural strength of the input model and the results of the FEA may be further used to optimize the topology of the input model.” [0048] “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled.”, where optimizing the topology of the model includes determining one or more 3D print settings) wherein the set of 3D print settings includes a plurality of 3D print setting options. ([0057]: “The toolpath may be generated using a toolpath generator module. Machine code (e.g., G/M code) may be generated by the generator module, which can be used to drive a 3D printer to print the object starting from a 3D input model. The generated machine code can instruct the printer in various movements (e.g., layer by layer, causing material deposition), thereby resulting in a 3D virtual part. Such a toolpath generation process can be characterized by several parameters (e.g., deposition bead width and height, infill density and pattern, print speed) that enable the user to fine tune the printing process.”, where parameters are a plurality of 3D print settings options).
Regarding claim 4, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 3.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein a 3D print setting within the set of 3D print settings includes an infill parameter. ([0061]: “[0061] FIG. 4 shows an example process of generating and optimizing a toolpath 400. The process 400 may be a sub-process flow for operations 103 and 104 described in FIG. 1. The toolpath may be optimized based on the AFEA analysis result and printing constraints. Referring to FIG. 4, the 3D object of interest may be partitioned into regions with or without infill 401. Such regions may include different perimeter thicknesses, layer thicknesses and raster angles (for roof and floors) and infill densities. Parameters (e.g., roof and/or floor thickness, perimeter thickness, raster angle) may be initialized at operation 401, in some cases, with user-specified values or values generated automatically by a computer program.”).
Regarding claim 5, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 3.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein a 3D print setting within the set of 3D print settings includes a fiber reinforcement parameter. ([0062]: “In optimization operations in FIG. 4, the topology of the 3D object may be fixed whereas toolpath parameters such as the geometry parameters (e.g., raster angles or infill densities) or fiber orientations may be adjusted to achieve the optimization objective.”, where fiber orientation adjustment is fiber reinforcement).
Regarding claim 6, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 3.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the computation of the internal mechanical state of the object includes using a finite element method. ([0048]: “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled. In other cases, the h-method may refer to decreasing the characteristic length (h) of elements by dividing each existing element into two or more elements without changing the type of elements used.”; [0049] “The structural analysis provided by the present disclosure may be suitable for analyzing complex structures or complex material and mechanical properties. For instance, the stress-strain property may vary across different elements (e.g., elements in FEA) based on the fiber orientations.”).
Regarding claim 7, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 3.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the computation of the internal mechanical state of the object includes calculating an internal strain energy of the object. ([0048]: “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used.” [0049] “The structural analysis provided by the present disclosure may be suitable for analyzing complex structures or complex material and mechanical properties. For instance, the stress-strain property may vary across different elements (e.g., elements in FEA) based on the fiber orientations.”; [0051] “Referring to FIG. 1, the initial topology optimization operation may involve using material interpolation methods, such as the standard Sequential Isotropic Material with Penalization (SIMP). and a topology optimization method. The topology optimization method may be a heuristic optimization method based on element strain-energy density, U(e).”).
Regarding claim 8, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 3.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the determination of the one or more 3D print settings based on the computed internal mechanical states ([0007]: “(b) using at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object; (c) simulating printing of the 3D object using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object; (d) analyzing the simulated 3D object to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold; and (e) if the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, generating printing instructions comprising the tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.”; [0008] “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”) includes determining a 3D print setting having the lowest simulated stress. ([0051]: “In some cases, with a predetermined topology such as a “black and white” topology, namely one containing solid (black) and void (white) regions only, the heuristic optimization method may calculate the strain-energy density on an element-by-element basis (e.g., elements in FEA) and based on the strain-energy density, the material in areas where the strain-energy density is low (e.g., lower than a determined threshold) may be eliminated, and material can be increased in regions where strain-energy density is high.”, where a determined threshold is the lowest simulated stress).
Regarding claim 9, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, ([0008]: “wherein the one or more computer processors can be individually or collectively programmed to:…”) when executed by the at least one processor, ([0008] “In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a system (e.g., computer-implemented system) for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, comprising: computer memory configured to store printing instructions comprising a tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object; and one or more computer processors operatively coupled to the computer memory,…”) cause the at least one processor to receive one or more boundary conditions corresponding to the object, ([0007]: “The design specification may comprise a load and/or a boundary condition.”; [0061]: “At operation 402, a finite element mesh may be initialized with loads and boundary conditions, material information may be specified, layers of the object may be specified as laminate structures, and perimeters may be specified as continuum.”) and wherein the stiffness information of the object is computed based on the received design data ([0008]: “(a) process a computer model of the 3D object to generate a strength or stress profile of the computer model; (b) use at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate the tool path for printing the 3D object;”; [0048] “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled.”) and the one or more boundary conditions. ([0007]: “The design specification may comprise a load and/or a boundary condition.”; [0061]: “At operation 402, a finite element mesh may be initialized with loads and boundary conditions, material information may be specified, layers of the object may be specified as laminate structures, and perimeters may be specified as continuum.”).
Regarding claim 10, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, ([0008]: “wherein the one or more computer processors can be individually or collectively programmed to:…”) when executed by the at least one processor, ([0008] “In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a system (e.g., computer-implemented system) for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, comprising: computer memory configured to store printing instructions comprising a tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object; and one or more computer processors operatively coupled to the computer memory,…”) cause the at least one processor to control printing of the object in accordance with the determined one or more 3D print settings. ([0007] “An aspect of the present disclosure provides a method (e.g., computer-implemented) for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object”; “(b) using at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object; (c) simulating printing of the 3D object using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object; (d) analyzing the simulated 3D object to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold; and (e) if the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, generating printing instructions comprising the tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.”, where displacement is deformation).
Regarding claim 11, Woytowitz discloses a method comprising: receive design data corresponding to an object; ([0008]: “(a) process a computer model of the 3D object to generate a strength or stress profile of the computer model;”) compute, based on the received design data, stiffness information of the object; ([0008]: “(a) process a computer model of the 3D object to generate a strength or stress profile of the computer model; (b) use at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate the tool path for printing the 3D object;”; [0048] “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled.”) determine a fundamental deformation shape, based on the stiffness information; and ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”; “The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”; [0058] “It can also optimize the orientation of the material being deposited to minimize deformation and stresses in the object based on the loading requirements.”, where displacement is deformation) determine a 3D print setting for printing the object, based on the determined fundamental deformation shape. ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”; “The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”; [0058] “It can also optimize the orientation of the material being deposited to minimize deformation and stresses in the object based on the loading requirements.”; [0007] “(b) using at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object; (c) simulating printing of the 3D object using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object; (d) analyzing the simulated 3D object to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold; and (e) if the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, generating printing instructions comprising the tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.”, where displacement is deformation).
Regarding claim 13, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim 11.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the determining of the 3D print setting for printing the object ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”) includes: computing, for each 3D print setting within a set of 3D print settings for printing the object, an internal mechanical state of the object, ([0048] “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled.”; [0049]: “The structural analysis provided by the present disclosure may be suitable for analyzing complex structures or complex material and mechanical properties.”, where a set of 3D print settings used for structural analysis includes only internal mechanical states) based on the determined fundamental deformation shape and the respective 3D print setting; ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”; “The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”; [0058] “It can also optimize the orientation of the material being deposited to minimize deformation and stresses in the object based on the loading requirements.”; [0007] “(b) using at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object; (c) simulating printing of the 3D object using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object; (d) analyzing the simulated 3D object to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold; and (e) if the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, generating printing instructions comprising the tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.”, where displacement is deformation) and determining one or more 3D print settings based on the computed internal mechanical states, ([0047]: “Next, an initial finite element analysis and topology optimization 102 may be performed. Finite element analysis (FEA) can be used to calculate the structural strength of the input model and the results of the FEA may be further used to optimize the topology of the input model.” [0048] “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled.”, where optimizing the topology of the model includes determining one or more 3D print settings) wherein the set of 3D print settings includes a plurality of 3D print setting options. ([0057]: “The toolpath may be generated using a toolpath generator module. Machine code (e.g., G/M code) may be generated by the generator module, which can be used to drive a 3D printer to print the object starting from a 3D input model. The generated machine code can instruct the printer in various movements (e.g., layer by layer, causing material deposition), thereby resulting in a 3D virtual part. Such a toolpath generation process can be characterized by several parameters (e.g., deposition bead width and height, infill density and pattern, print speed) that enable the user to fine tune the printing process.”, where parameters are a plurality of 3D print settings options).
Regarding claim 14, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim 13.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein a 3D print setting within the set of 3D print settings includes an infill parameter. ([0061]: “FIG. 4 shows an example process of generating and optimizing a toolpath 400. The process 400 may be a sub-process flow for operations 103 and 104 described in FIG. 1. The toolpath may be optimized based on the AFEA analysis result and printing constraints. Referring to FIG. 4, the 3D object of interest may be partitioned into regions with or without infill 401. Such regions may include different perimeter thicknesses, layer thicknesses and raster angles (for roof and floors) and infill densities. Parameters (e.g., roof and/or floor thickness, perimeter thickness, raster angle) may be initialized at operation 401, in some cases, with user-specified values or values generated automatically by a computer program.”).
Regarding claim 15, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim 13.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein a 3D print setting within the set of 3D print settings includes a fiber reinforcement parameter. ([0062]: “In optimization operations in FIG. 4, the topology of the 3D object may be fixed whereas toolpath parameters such as the geometry parameters (e.g., raster angles or infill densities) or fiber orientations may be adjusted to achieve the optimization objective.”, where fiber orientation adjustment is fiber reinforcement).
Regarding claim 16, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim 13.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the computation of the internal mechanical state of the object includes using a finite element method. ([0048]: “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled. In other cases, the h-method may refer to decreasing the characteristic length (h) of elements by dividing each existing element into two or more elements without changing the type of elements used.”; [0049] “The structural analysis provided by the present disclosure may be suitable for analyzing complex structures or complex material and mechanical properties. For instance, the stress-strain property may vary across different elements (e.g., elements in FEA) based on the fiber orientations.”).
Regarding claim 17, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim 13.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the computation of the internal mechanical state of the object includes calculating an internal strain energy of the object. ([0048]: “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used.” [0049] “The structural analysis provided by the present disclosure may be suitable for analyzing complex structures or complex material and mechanical properties. For instance, the stress-strain property may vary across different elements (e.g., elements in FEA) based on the fiber orientations.”; [0051] “Referring to FIG. 1, the initial topology optimization operation may involve using material interpolation methods, such as the standard Sequential Isotropic Material with Penalization (SIMP). and a topology optimization method. The topology optimization method may be a heuristic optimization method based on element strain-energy density, U(e).”).
Regarding claim 18, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim 13.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the determination of the one or more 3D print settings based on the computed internal mechanical states ([0007]: “(b) using at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object; (c) simulating printing of the 3D object using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object; (d) analyzing the simulated 3D object to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold; and (e) if the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, generating printing instructions comprising the tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.”; [0008] “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”) includes determining a 3D print setting having the lowest simulated stress. ([0051]: “In some cases, with a predetermined topology such as a “black and white” topology, namely one containing solid (black) and void (white) regions only, the heuristic optimization method may calculate the strain-energy density on an element-by-element basis (e.g., elements in FEA) and based on the strain-energy density, the material in areas where the strain-energy density is low (e.g., lower than a determined threshold) may be eliminated, and material can be increased in regions where strain-energy density is high.”, where a determined threshold is the lowest simulated stress).
Regarding claim 19, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim 11.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, ([0008]: “wherein the one or more computer processors can be individually or collectively programmed to:…”) when executed by the at least one processor, ([0008] “In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a system (e.g., computer-implemented system) for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, comprising: computer memory configured to store printing instructions comprising a tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object; and one or more computer processors operatively coupled to the computer memory,…”) cause the at least one processor to receive one or more boundary conditions corresponding to the object, ([0007]: “The design specification may comprise a load and/or a boundary condition.”; [0061]: “At operation 402, a finite element mesh may be initialized with loads and boundary conditions, material information may be specified, layers of the object may be specified as laminate structures, and perimeters may be specified as continuum.”) and wherein the stiffness information of the object is computed based on the received design data ([0008]: “(a) process a computer model of the 3D object to generate a strength or stress profile of the computer model; (b) use at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate the tool path for printing the 3D object;”; [0048] “For the structural analysis, FEA methods, such as the standard h-method finite element method may be used. In some cases, the standard h-method may be used for developing element stiffness matrices and element load vectors that can then be globally assembled.”) and the one or more boundary conditions. ([0007]: “The design specification may comprise a load and/or a boundary condition.”; [0061]: “At operation 402, a finite element mesh may be initialized with loads and boundary conditions, material information may be specified, layers of the object may be specified as laminate structures, and perimeters may be specified as continuum.”).
Regarding claim 20, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim11.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the computer-readable instructions, ([0008]: “wherein the one or more computer processors can be individually or collectively programmed to:…”) when executed by the at least one processor, ([0008] “In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a system (e.g., computer-implemented system) for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, comprising: computer memory configured to store printing instructions comprising a tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object; and one or more computer processors operatively coupled to the computer memory,…”) cause the at least one processor to control printing of the object in accordance with the determined one or more 3D print settings. ([0007] “An aspect of the present disclosure provides a method (e.g., computer-implemented) for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object”; “(b) using at least (i) the strength or stress profile from (a) and (ii) a topology of the 3D object to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object; (c) simulating printing of the 3D object using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object; (d) analyzing the simulated 3D object to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold; and (e) if the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, generating printing instructions comprising the tool path for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.”, where displacement is deformation).
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz et. al. (US 20200156323 A1), in view of David et. al. (JP 2023056515 A).
Regarding claim 2, Woytowitz teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the determining of the fundamental deformation shape includes: ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”; “The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”; [0058] “It can also optimize the orientation of the material being deposited to minimize deformation and stresses in the object based on the loading requirements.”, where displacement is deformation).
Woytowitz does not explicitly teach “wherein the determining of the fundamental deformation shape includes: computing an eigenvector or eigenvalue based on the computed stiffness information; determining at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue having a low energy mode; and applying the determined at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue having a low energy mode to the received design data corresponding to the object.”
David further teaches wherein the determining of the fundamental deformation shape includes: computing an eigenvector or eigenvalue based on the computed stiffness information; ([Column 22 line 24]: “The data associated to the first mesh may further include one or more parameters related to the material. These material parameters may in particular represent physical characteristics of the material, e.g. characteristics of the material with respect to the physical property. The material parameters may for example relate to a constitutive law of the material with respect to the physical property.”; [Column 23 line 6] “The physical property may be stiffness and the constitutive law may represent the stiffness as a constitutive relation between the stress and the strain, as known per se from the field of mechanics.”; [Column 24 line 3] “The providing of the orientation tensor field may further comprise computing the orientation tensor field at the location based on the local stress tensor field. The method may compute the local stress tensor using any known method, for example a finite element analysis.”; [Column 24 line 11] “In examples, the computing of the orientation tensor field may comprise computing a first orientation based on a principal eigenvector of the local stress tensor.”, where the eigenvector is calculated based on the stiffness information due to the relationship between stiffness and stress) determining at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue having a low energy mode; and applying the determined at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue having a low energy mode to the received design data corresponding to the object. ([Column 24 line 24]: “Alternatively, or in examples where the second and/or the third eigenvectors correspond to low level of stress, i.e., when the corresponding eigenvalue for each of the second and the third eigenvector is of small magnitude (e.g., smaller than a ten percent or five percent of the eigenvalue of largest magnitude) the method may generate the second and the third orientation, each by a cross product between the first orientation and a constant vector (e.g., standard basis).” [Column 25 line 8] “Such an optimizing may be based on the first mesh and on the data associated to the first mesh.”, where small magnitude eigenvalue includes a near zero value which would be a low energy mode for the eigenvalue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Woytowitz to incorporate the teachings of David so as to include determining the fundamental deformation shape by computing an eigenvector or eigenvalue based on the computed stiffness with at least one eigenvalue or eigenvector having a low energy mode and applying the eigenvector or eigenvalue to the received design data. Doing so would allow for an improved method of designing a modeled object (David, [Column 2 line 16]: “Within this context, there is still a need for an improved method for designing a modeled object representing a mechanical part formed in a material having an anisotropic behavior with respect to a physical property.”).
Regarding claim 12, Woytowitz teaches the method of Claim11.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the determining of the fundamental deformation shape includes: ([0008]: “The strength or stress profile may comprise information based on an estimated or predicted stress, calculated or predetermined strength of material for printing the 3D object, or both.”; “The strength or stress profile may be replaced with other criteria used in assessing structural performance, for example, a “stiffness” requirement, where one may require achieving some level of displacement.”; [0058] “It can also optimize the orientation of the material being deposited to minimize deformation and stresses in the object based on the loading requirements.”, where displacement is deformation).
Woytowitz does not explicitly teach “wherein the determining of the fundamental deformation shape includes: computing an eigenvector or eigenvalue based on the computed stiffness information; determining at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue having a low energy mode; and applying the determined at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue having a low energy mode to the received design data corresponding to the object.”
David further teaches wherein the determining of the fundamental deformation shape includes: computing an eigenvector or eigenvalue based on the computed stiffness information; ([Column 22 line 24]: “The data associated to the first mesh may further include one or more parameters related to the material. These material parameters may in particular represent physical characteristics of the material, e.g. characteristics of the material with respect to the physical property. The material parameters may for example relate to a constitutive law of the material with respect to the physical property.”; [Column 23 line 6] “The physical property may be stiffness and the constitutive law may represent the stiffness as a constitutive relation between the stress and the strain, as known per se from the field of mechanics.”; [Column 24 line 3] “The providing of the orientation tensor field may further comprise computing the orientation tensor field at the location based on the local stress tensor field. The method may compute the local stress tensor using any known method, for example a finite element analysis.”; [Column 24 line 11] “In examples, the computing of the orientation tensor field may comprise computing a first orientation based on a principal eigenvector of the local stress tensor.”, where the eigenvector is calculated based on the stiffness information due to the relationship between stiffness and stress) determining at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue having a low energy mode; and applying the determined at least one eigenvector or eigenvalue having a low energy mode to the received design data corresponding to the object. ([Column 24 line 24]: “Alternatively, or in examples where the second and/or the third eigenvectors correspond to low level of stress, i.e., when the corresponding eigenvalue for each of the second and the third eigenvector is of small magnitude (e.g., smaller than a ten percent or five percent of the eigenvalue of largest magnitude) the method may generate the second and the third orientation, each by a cross product between the first orientation and a constant vector (e.g., standard basis).” [Column 25 line 8] “Such an optimizing may be based on the first mesh and on the data associated to the first mesh.”, where small magnitude eigenvalue includes a near zero value which would be a low energy mode for the eigenvalue).
The reasons to combine Woytowitz into David are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAOS PHILLIP ZERVOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30am-5:00pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E Fennema can be reached at 540-566-5633. 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.
/N.P.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
