PTAB

IPR2025-00354

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co Ltd v. Stratasys Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Networked Three-Dimensional Printer with Three-Dimensional Scanner
  • Brief Description: The ’097 patent relates to a system for remotely managing and monitoring 3D printers over a network. The system integrates a 3D scanner to capture information about an object during fabrication and provides status updates from a web server for display at a remote client.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Knighton, Luo, and Anderson - Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18-19 are obvious over Knighton in view of Luo and Anderson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Knighton (Patent 9,156,204), Luo (a 1999 IEEE publication), and Anderson (Application # 2004/0207662).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Knighton, taught a 3D printing apparatus with an integrated 3D scanner for capturing a model of the work-in-progress. Knighton's control subsystem analyzes this scan data to identify variances, thereby disclosing the claimed scanner and machine vision system. Luo taught a system for remote tele-control of a 3D printer via the Internet, using a local WWW server to communicate with a remote user's browser, which satisfied the network interface and web server limitations. The combination was further modified with Anderson, which taught providing enhanced visual status of a fabrication process, including percentage completion and wireframe overlays of the object's progress.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to enable remote access, monitoring, and control of expensive 3D printing equipment, thereby increasing its accessibility and utility. Petitioner asserted it would have been an obvious improvement to enhance Luo’s web-based remote interface by displaying the rich 3D scan data from Knighton’s in-process scanner. Adding Anderson’s detailed progress visualizations would provide a more comprehensive and useful remote monitoring experience than a simple camera feed.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because all references are in the 3D printing field and the combination involved the predictable integration of known software (web servers, user interfaces) and hardware (scanners, network interfaces) components.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mazumder and Bonassar - Claims 1-5, 9-19 are obvious over Mazumder in view of Bonassar.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mazumder (Patent 6,580,959) and Bonassar (Application # 2006/0160250).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mazumder taught a remotely controlled 3D printing system using a network link (preferably the Internet) to allow a remote user to monitor, control, and modify fabrication in real-time. Mazumder disclosed using optical sensors to monitor the process and transmit status data to the remote user. Bonassar taught a fabrication system that uses in-situ 3D scanning to measure the geometry of a real object as it is being produced, compare it to a digital model, and automatically generate modifications to the manufacturing plan to remedy discrepancies or errors.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bonassar’s detailed 3D scanning and error-correction system with Mazumder's framework to provide a specific, advanced implementation of the generic "optical sensors" taught by Mazumder. This combination would create a more robust remote fabrication system capable of not just remote monitoring, but also of automatically detecting and correcting defects in real-time. This would improve the final quality, reliability, and efficiency of the remote fabrication process.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because both references concern 3D printing systems. The combination involved applying a more advanced sensor and control logic (from Bonassar) to an existing remote-access framework (from Mazumder), which Petitioner asserted was a straightforward engineering task.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against individual dependent claims by adding single, topic-specific references to the two primary combinations. These included adding Mamoto (for stereolithography), Crampton (for structured light scanning), Chandhoke (for pass/fail evaluation), Ridley (for audible/visual alerts), Mazumder (to add an abort function), Biton (for layer misalignment detection), and Bakhadyrov (for surface hole detection).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. Under §325(d), Petitioner contended that review is warranted because key prior art, particularly Knighton, disclosed the critical 3D scanning functionality added during prosecution and was never considered by the examiner. Petitioner further argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the petition was filed early in a parallel district court case, a final written decision would issue contemporaneously with the trial date, and Petitioner has stipulated not to pursue the same grounds in the district court action, thereby avoiding duplicative efforts.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 and 8-19 of Patent 8,747,097 as unpatentable.