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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of calculating a scaling error between actual height measurements and controlled height adjustments, a step that could be performed in the human mind and/or represent a mathematical concept.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps leading up to calculating the scaling error are merely data gathering activities, and the simple recitation of correcting Z-coordinates based on the calculated Z-scale error is equivalent to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, in the sense of just adding the words “apply it.”
With respect to Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the post-solution activity of printing a 3D object by correcting Z-coordinates based on the calculated scale error is merely an application of a well-understood, routine, and conventional step of correcting for errors, and the data gathering aspects of the claims as a whole do not recite any steps, equipment or modifications to the steps/equipment that rise above well-understood, routine, and conventional ways to adjust and measure height of a surface, as measurement with a laser scanner is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Note that Claims 1-4 are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given little patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details).
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pieger et al. (WO 2019/197138 A1, hereinafter Pieger, and wherein citations made below refer to the English-language equivalent publication US 2021/0023622 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 8-9, Pieger teaches an apparatus and method that
controls a height adjustment mechanism to adjust a height of a print platform of a 3D printing apparatus to a first control and then additional control heights (“measurement uncertainty can be additionally reduced by repeated movement of the height-adjustable construction platform in the height direction to three or more different height positions, a respective distance in the height direction being determined with the aid of a travel distance respectively between two of the height positions” [0040]),
controlling a height measurement mechanism to perform height measurements at the various control heights (“determination of the distance from the scanner device or devices” [0040] -- note that this phrase is understood in context saying that in addition to a height distance estimate from the aforementioned travel distance, the scanner device(s) also determine a height distance) and
calculating a Z-scale scaling error of the height adjustment mechanism based on differences in the height measurements and the control heights, thus controlling the printing of a 3D object by correcting Z-coordinates based on the calculated Z-scale error (“above-described approaches can be … combined or carried out in parallel … by …. averaging of the values determined in the different measurement strategies, to increase the measurement accuracy … during the determination of the height position of the construction platform” [0040] (note that calculating a scaling error is being interpreted broadly such that averaging height measurement values to increase measurement accuracy during the determination of the height position of the construction platform is considered to comprise calculating a scaling error as part of the corrections being made to the determination of the height position, with the scaling error thus corresponding to a deviation in the height adjustment mechanism between a control height and an actual height).
Addiioinally, Pieger teaches in [0041] that the height measurement mechanism includes a laser scanner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 and Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pieger as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, respectively, and in view of Barbati et al. (US 11,597,153 B1, hereinafter Barbati).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Pieger teaches the apparatus and method as applied above, but is silent on performing a regression in the calculating of the scaling error.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Barbati teaches in Column 17 Line 12 – Column 18 Line 27 that when making process adjustments designed to arrive at an intended Z-axis value, one known way to do this is to take multiple measurements of the height of an object at different points and develop a regression based on the measurements to predict a change and allow for better dialing in of the intended height.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to, per Barbati, incorporate a more robust method of calculating scaling error in Pieger, one that includes performing a regression, since incorporating a regression would be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield the predictable result of improving the accuracy of height in the Z-axis.
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Pieger teaches the apparatus and method as applied above, including that reference marks be made on the platform to enable measuring of heights, but is silent on incorporating a height of a gauge block that Is present on the platform during at least one of the height measurements.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Barbati teaches in Column 7 Line 30 – Column 8 Line 25 that when making process adjustments designed to arrive at an intended Z-axis value, one way to do this is that as part of measurement-taking, a height gauge may be used to ensure dimensional accuracy in the measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to, per Barbati, incorporate a height gauge (i.e. gauge block) in Pieger to ensure dimensional accuracy in the measurements (thus meaning the calculation of the scaling error would be based in part on the height of gauge block). Additionally, while Barbati does not explicitly instruct placing the gauge block on the platform, Pieger’s previous teaching that reference marks be made on the platform would sufficiently motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to place the gauge block on the platform as part of the process of improving measurement accuracy, particularly as there would be a finite and limited number of places where a gauge block could be predictably placed with the confines of Pieger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues by pointing to examples and attempting to draw parallels, while not specifically addressing the Examiner’s previous arguments, which the Examiner thus maintains. With respect to the examples cited by Applicant, the Examiner that the comparisons are not appropriate, as Applicant is reciting a much simpler one-time process that could be done by hand and is not recited to require complex calculations that could be plausibly carried out by the human mind in a reasonable amount of time.
With respect to the art rejections, the Examiner maintains that the broad interpretation of calculating the scaling error reads on Pieger, since “scaling error” is not sufficiently defined in the claims so as to rule out the interpretation being applied. The claims do not define “actual height” with any specificity, meaning Applicant’s arguing referencing “actual height” do not have sufficient basis for differentiation against the broad interpretation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights