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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 66-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The step of, “first, receiving successively by a computer, SVG blocks that make up a plane slice of the 3D object and tolerances for all curves within SVG blocks until all SVG blocks and tolerances of all plane slices have been received,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification was reviewed but support for the step of, “first, receiving successively by a computer, SVG blocks that make up a plane slice of the 3D object and tolerances for all curves within SVG blocks until all SVG blocks and tolerances of all plane slices have been received,” was not found.
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 66-73 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.
There are numerous recitations throughout the claims which recite indefinite elements, subject matter, grammar, syntax and scope. There are numerous instances of the same term or terms being recited multiple times throughout the claims without referring back to and/or distinguishing from the prior recitations of the same terminology. There are also numerous instances where it is not definite what subject matter is being claimed or how to interpret the grammar, syntax and scope(s) of the claims and step and sub-steps thereof such that it is not definite what is presently claimed.
The recitation of “receiving successively by a computer, SVG blocks that make up a plane slice of the 3D object and tolerances for all curves within SVG blocks until all SVG blocks and tolerances of all plane slices have been received” is not definite. It is not definite if this step is claiming receiving SVG blocks and tolerances, or if the step is claiming that the SVG blocks make up a plane slice of the 3D object and tolerances for all curves within SVG blocks, or another interpretation.
The recitations of SVG blocks also lack articles such as “the” or “said” such that there is not definite antecedent basis for the recitations. In addition, there are recitations of “an SVG block” that do not refer back to the earlier recitations of SVG block(s) such that it is not definite which SVG block(s) are being referred to and if they are the same or interrelated or distinct.
In claim 69, f, ii, iv, the grammar and syntax of those sub steps are not definite such that it is not definite what is claimed.
In claim 69, it is not definite what the multiple recitations of “new chords” and of “the new chords” refer to or whether these recitations refer to the same new chords.
In claim 69, f, vi, it is not definite what is meant by “fitting the average length by dividing that average length by the largest pre-formed rod, recursively followed by dividing the remaining average length by the lengths of shorter pre- formed rods until the entire average length is fitted” or what the recitations of ‘average length’ refer to throughout this recitation.
In claim 70, it is not definite what is meant by “the remaining length”.
It is not definite which arcs the multiple recitations of terms such as “arcs”, “rods”, “boards”, “long diagonal” refer to throughout the claims. It is not definite whether the multiple recitations of terms such as “arcs”, “rods”, “boards”, “long diagonal” refer to the same respective of terms such as “arcs”, “rods”, “boards”, “long diagonal” or various/different instances of terms such as “arcs”, “rods”, “boards”, “long diagonal”.
In claim 71, it is not definite what the scope of step b is or whether the following steps in claim 71 are part of step b.
It is not definite what is meant by “extreme” as recited in claims 69 and 71 or how to interpret the term “extreme”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 68-73 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks begin by noting the claim status and amendments. The remarks then address the prior art rejections. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 66-73 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. As noted above, claim 66 was found to include new matter while claims 68-73, as best understood, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The remarks then provide a conclusion requesting allowance. However, the claims are presently rejected as set forth and explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours.
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, EDWARD (NED) LANDRUM can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 September 19, 2025