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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 73 and 75-82 are examined.
Claims 83-92 are withdrawn
Claim 74 and 93 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 78 recites “wherein said phase-space transformation is a translation operation”. For examination purposes “translation operation” is interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [00141] as the mathematical operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
The claims fall into the category of a method of using a computer.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS
PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
“computer processing a computer representation of a 3D object to generate a first plurality of parts of said 3D object”
“computer processing said first plurality of parts to yield a second plurality of parts”
“using said second plurality of parts to generate printing instructions for generating said 3D object”
The limitation of “processing … to generate a first plurality of parts,” “processing … to yield a second plurality of parts,” and “generate printing instructions” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer processing,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer processing” language,:
“processing a computer representation of a 3D object to generate a first plurality of parts of said 3D object” in the context of the claim encompasses the user visualizing a 3D object, putting the visualized object on paper and/or using a modeling program, and breaking the structure of the model down into a first plurality of parts of different volumes;
“processing said first plurality of parts to yield a second plurality of parts” in the context of the claim encompasses the user visually breaking down the modelled first plurality of parts into a second plurality of parts of essentially equal volumes and putting the visualized parts on paper and/or using a modeling program;
“generate printing instructions” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating the modelled second plurality of parts to form a step-by-step process to print the modelled parts.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using computer processing to perform processing to the generate a first plurality of parts of said 3D object, processing to yield a second plurality of parts, and generate printing instructions steps. The computer processing in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing a generic computer function of processing and generating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the limitation “polymerizing a medium in accordance with said printing instructions” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than merely applying the exception (applying the printing instructions to print). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional element of using computer processing to perform generate a first plurality of parts of said 3D object, yield a second plurality of parts, and generate printing instructions steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The step of “printing … by polymerizing a medium in accordance with said printing instructions” is a general process that is routinely used in stereolithography (see prior art Gupta ¶ [0047, 0083] below) and does not amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05.
As claims 75-82 depend on claim 73, the claims are rejected for reciting an abstract idea without significantly more.
claim 75 further defines the “printing” by “curing a resin”; however, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application and do not recite significantly more (“curing a resin” is known in prior art Gupta ¶ [0047]) than the abstract idea
claim 76 further defines the “second plurality of parts” as a “holographic representation”; however, “holographic representation” is known in the prior art (Chen [0047] cited below) and therefore, the additional limitations do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea
claim 77 recites a further abstract idea of “generating a phase-space hologram by applying a phase-space transformation to the first plurality of parts”; the limitation of “generating a phase-space hologram by applying a phase-space transformation” covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components; For example, but for the “computer processing” language, “generate a phase-space hologram by applying a phase-space transformation” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating and doing math to perform the phase-space transformation (see instant ¶ [00139-00141], which recites phase-space transformation as a mathematical operator)
claim 78 further defines the abstract idea of “generating a phase-space hologram”; however, the additional limitations do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea
claim 79 further defines the “3D object” as a “amorphous 3D object”; however, “holographic representation” is known in the prior art (Carr-Brendel ¶ [0120] cited below) and therefore, the additional limitations do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea
claim 80 recites a further abstract idea of “a first shape of a part … and a second shape of a part … are selected”; the limitation of “a first shape of a part … and a second shape of a part … are selected” covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components; For example, but for the “computer processing” language, “select” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating the visualized model to choose a suitable shape
claim 81 further defines the abstract idea of “select”; however, the additional limitations do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea; furthermore, “a clustering algorithm” is considered math and directed to an additional abstract idea
claim 82 further defines the “second plurality of parts” of the “3D object”; however, the additional limitations do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 73, 75, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Gupta (US 20210170690).
Regarding claim 73, Gupta teaches a method for printing a three- dimensional (3D) object ([0005], an additive manufacturing method), comprising:
(a) computer processing (¶ [0044] - software executing process) said computer representation of said 3D object (¶ [0066] - CAD model represents 3D part) to generate a first plurality of parts of said 3D object (¶ [0066] - splitting into a plurality of segments 1901), wherein one part of the said first plurality of parts have different volumes to another part of said first plurality of parts (¶ [0049] – each segment arranged in a different layer than other segments, ¶ [0083] – barcode segmented into two parts and embedded at different depths; FIG. 10C depicts the 2 sections/segments have “different volumes”);
PNG
media_image1.png
579
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gupta FIG. 10C
(b) computer processing (¶ [0044] - software executing process) said first plurality of parts (¶ [0066] - a plurality of segments 1901) to yield a second plurality of parts (¶ [0066] - incorporate the CAD model of the identified features in segments in 1901 into segments in 1903, which are the second plurality of parts);
(c) using said second plurality of parts to generate printing instructions for generating said 3D object (¶ [0066] - using the CAD model of the additively-manufactured part 1904 to create CAD model);
(d) printing said 3D object using said printing instructions (¶ [0005] - printing 3D part using the CAD model) by polymerizing a medium (¶ [0083] - 3D part is printed using VeroClear transparent photopolymer) in accordance with said printing instructions (¶ [0066] - printing an additively-manufactured part using the CAD model of the additively-manufactured part 1904).
Gupta teaches in another embodiment where 3 sections/segments are embedded at different depths within the same cube (¶ [0075-0076]). As depicted in FIG. 8A, the sections/segments are “substantially identical volumes”. An embedded code (identifying feature) may act like a defect, reducing one or more mechanical properties of the part (¶ [0049]). To remedy this, a code may be sliced or divided into multiple segments, spread out to different layers or regions (¶ [0049]).
PNG
media_image2.png
673
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gupta FIG. 8A
Gupta does not explicitly teach yield a second plurality of parts wherein each part of said second plurality of parts has substantially identical volumes to each other part of said second plurality of parts.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further divide the segments of the CAD model into “substantially identical parts” as depicted in FIG. 8A to reduce defect and improve mechanical properties of the additively manufactured part (¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 75, modified Gupta discloses the method of claim 73.
Gupta further teaches wherein said 3D object is printed by curing a resin in accordance with said printing instructions (¶ [0047] - 3D object is printed via photolithography process according to the printing method; photolithography is a printing process via curing photopolymer resin).
Regarding claim 80, modified Gupta discloses the method of claim 73.
Gupta further teaches a first shape (¶ [0082] - image of the code is assessed by checking the shape of the rectangle of each part) of a part of said first plurality of parts (Fig. 15A, ¶ [0082] - a part of a plurality of parts are selected in image comparison) and a second shape (¶ [0082] - image of the code is assessed by checking the shape of the rectangle of each part) of a part of said second plurality of parts (Fig. 15A, ¶ [0082] - a part of another plurality of parts are selected in image comparison) are selected in accordance with the compactness of each of said first shape and said second shape (¶ [0065] - selecting each plurality of parts based on the size of the part).
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 20210170690), as applied in claim 73, further in view of Chen (US 20190193330).
Regarding claim 76, modified Gupta discloses the method of claim 73.
Gupta does not teach said second plurality of parts is part of a holographic representation of said 3D object.
Chen teaches a method of printing 3D object (¶ [0004]) wherein the plurality of parts of the printing instruction (¶ [0047] - the CAD model is decomposed into a point array) is part of a holographic representation of said 3D object (¶ [0047] - each point in space corresponds to a specific hologram).
Gupta and Chen teach methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to photopolymerization. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printing instruction (CAD model) in Gupta to incorporate a holographic representation of a 3D object as taught by Chen to allow trajectories to be easily planned by arbitrarily arrange the hologram sequence (¶ [0047]).
Claims 77 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 20210170690), as applied in claim 73, further in view of Chen (US 20190193330) and Testorf (“Holography in Phase Space”).
Regarding claim 77, modified Gupta discloses the method of claim 73.
Gupta does not teach generating a phase-space hologram.
Chen teaches generating a hologram representing of a 3D object (¶ [0047] - each point in space corresponds to a specific hologram).
Gupta and Chen teach apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to photopolymerization. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printing instruction (CAD model) in Gupta to incorporate a holographic representation of a 3D object as taught by Chen to allow trajectories to be easily planned by arbitrarily arrange the hologram sequence (¶ [0047]).
Gupta and Chen does not teach applying a phase-space transformation in order to generate the holographic representation.
Analogous art Testorf teaches holographic schemes, off-axis holography, and phase-space optics (pg. A71, ¶ 2).
Testorf teaches a method of generating a holographic representation of an image by phase-space transformation (Fig. 2, Phase-space diagram of Gabor inline holography).
Modified Gupta and Testorf teach methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards computer processing to generate holography. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transformation method in modified Gupta to phase-space transformation as taught by Testorf because the phase-space analysis helps apply off-axis holography to a larger class of recording configurations (pg. A71, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 78, modified Gupta discloses the method of claim 77.
Gupta does not teach a phase-space transformation is a translation operation.
Testorf further teaches wherein the phase-space transformation is a translation operation (pg. A71, ¶ 3 – phase-space optics (PSO) is a translation operation that characterizes optical signals based on a joint representation of signal properties and spectral properties).
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 20210170690), as applied in claim 73, further in view of Carr-Brendel (US 20050251083).
Regarding claim 79, modified Gupta discloses the method of claim 73.
Gupta does not teach the 3D object is an amorphous 3D object.
Analogous art Carr-Brendel teaches a method of printing a 3D object (¶ [0097] - methods of forming three-dimensional macro-architecture).
Carr-Brendel further teaches wherein the 3D object is an amorphous 3D object (¶ [0120] -macro-architecture 36 shown in FIG. 3 is substantially amorphous).
Gupta and Carr-Brendel teach methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to additive manufacturing. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Gupta to incorporate printing an amorphous 3D object as taught by Carr-Brendel because it is known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the element as claimed with no change in its respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I).
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 20210170690), as applied in claim 73 and 80, further in view of Thayer (US 20210031456).
Regarding claim 81, modified Gupta discloses the method of claim 80.
Gupta does not teach the first shape of the part of the first plurality of parts and the shape of the part of the second plurality of parts are selected through a clustering algorithm.
Analogous art Thayer teaches a method to generate instructions to print 3D object (¶ [0002] – 3D printing).
Thayer further teaches wherein the first shape of each part of the 3D object (¶ [0056] - a printed structure with structure characteristics) is selected through a clustering algorithm (¶ [0058] - the learning algorithm can be a classification algorithm such as hierarchical clustering and k means clustering).
Gupta and Thayer teach methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to generating printing instruction for printing 3D object. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the selection method for shape in Gupta to incorporate a clustering algorithm for the selecting process as taught by Thayer in order to generate a better printing structure that is more closely resembling the structure defined by the user (¶ [0056]).
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 20210170690), as applied in claim 73, further in view of Rothenberg (US 20160236415).
Regarding claim 82, modified Gupta discloses the method of claim 73.
Gupta does not teach the second plurality of parts interlock.
Analogous art Rothenberg teaches a 3D printing method (¶ [0001] – additive manufacturing techniques), comprising computer processing (¶ [0070] - process is operated by computers) the 3D object into a plurality of parts (¶ [0064] - obtaining 3-D scan of a 3-D surface and demarcating as an input shape for a seamless mesh).
Rothenberg further teaches wherein the plurality of parts interlock (¶ [0064] - base shape connects to its neighbor from interlocking).
Gupta and Rothenberg teach methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to generating printing instruction for printing 3D object. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing method in Gupta to incorporate computer processing the 3D object into a plurality of parts which are interlocking with neighbors as taught by Rothenberg, because it is known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the element as claimed with no change in its respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Gupta focuses on a different problem and provides a solution irrelevant to the claimed method as Gupta teaches embedding a code or feature inside an additive manufacturing part.
In response to applicant's argument that Gupta is directed to a different problem and provides a solution irrelevant to the claimed method, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues Gupta fails to teach “generate a first plurality of parts of said 3D object, wherein one part of said first plurality of parts have different volumes to another part said first plurality of parts”.
See updated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection addressing the limitation.
Gupta teaches in another embodiment where 3 sections/segments are embedded at different depths within the same cube (¶ [0075-0076]). As depicted in FIG. 8A, the sections/segments are “substantially identical volumes”. An embedded code (identifying feature) may act like a defect, reducing one or more mechanical properties of the part (¶ [0049]). To remedy this, a code may be sliced or divided into multiple segments, spread out to different layers or regions (¶ [0049]).
Gupta does not explicitly teach yield a second plurality of parts wherein each part of said second plurality of parts has substantially identical volumes to each other part of said second plurality of parts.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further divide the segments of the CAD model into “substantially identical parts” as depicted in FIG. 8A to reduce defect and improve mechanical properties of the additively manufactured part (¶ [0049]).
Applicant argues Gupta fails to teach “computer processing said first plurality of parts to yield a second plurality of parts, wherein each part of said second plurality of parts has substantially identical volume to each other part of said second plurality of parts”.
See updated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection addressing the limitation where Gupta teaches each segment arranged in a different layer than other segments (¶ [0049]), it is understood the code could be sliced and distributed among multiple layers (¶ [0075-0076]) and FIG. 8A depicts the 3 sections/segments have “substantially identical volume”);
Applicant argues Gupta and Faken fails to teach “rebalancing the volumes of 3D parts within a model”, resulting from the generating of two pluralities of 3D parts of a 3D object.
The claims are read under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitations “computer processing … to generate a first plurality of parts” and “computer processing … to yield a second plurality of parts” as claimed broadly and are met by the teaches of Gupta as presented above.
In response to applicant's argument that Gupta does not teach “rebalancing the volumes of 3D parts within a model”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., rebalancing the volumes of 3D parts within a model) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the claimed invention “reflects an improvement to 3D printing technology” and “the judicial exception needs to be evaluated together to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application”.
As claimed “printing said 3D object … by polymerizing a medium” is broadly claimed and is not limited to “a light beam projected through parts of different volumes to cure a polymerize medium for 3D printing”.
Furthermore, the step of “printing … by polymerizing a medium in accordance with said printing instructions” is a general process that is routinely used in stereolithography (Gupta ¶ [0047] - 3D object is printed via photolithography process according to the printing method; photolithography is a printing process via curing photopolymer resin; ¶ [0083] - 3D part is printed using VeroClear transparent photopolymer) and does not amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754