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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 16 and 22 have been amended. Claims 7-15 remain canceled. Claims 16-27 remain withdrawn from consideration. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 16-27 remain pending, with claims 1-6 being the claims addressed and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that at least as amended, independent claim 1 is patent subject matter eligible, because even if the claimed determination of a volumetric data model from beam lattice data constitutes an abstract idea, the claim is directed to significantly more than any such abstract idea or other judicial exception because the claims provide for a technical solution to a technological problem.
The technological problem being that 3D printers may not be able to process object model data that encodes an object in a triangle mesh; thus, the technical solution is the particularly and explicitly recited process by which the claimed subject matter determines a volumetric data model from the beam lattice data. See pages 1-3.
This argument was not found to be persuasive. Referring to MPEP § 2106.05(a) it states “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., … a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology …”; and it is respectfully noted, consistent with the MPEP, that Applicant’s arguments are merely a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art and therefore Applicant’s argument that the process in claim 1 improves technology is not persuasive.
Arguments Regarding Applied Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see pages, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new prior art reference found in an updated search necessitated by the amendments to the claims in view of Applicant’s remarks (see Langnau as applied in the rejections below).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claim recites a determining step in claim 1 that under a broadest
reasonable interpretation reads upon a mental step. The claim limitation comprises dividing a volume in data into sub-volumes, categorizing the sub-volumes into one of interior, exterior or boundary sub-volumes and repeating the subdivision and categorization of the sub-volumes until a threshold volume size is reached. The entirety of the determining step is capable of being performed in the human mind or with the aid of paper and pencil. While the claim is written such that the step is carried out “by the additive manufacturing apparatus”, it is noted in MPEP 2106.04(A) that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Step 2A Prong 2: the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The
claim includes the generic recitation of “an additive manufacturing apparatus” recited at a high level of generality and does not constitute a particular machine or manufacture integral to the claim. The claim also recites generating an object “based on the categorized sub-volumes”. The claim does not place any meaningful limits on the manner in which the categorization of the sub-volumes impacts the generic recitation of generating the object and is determined to be insignificant post-solution activity. The abstract idea is generally linked to the field of use of additive manufacturing which as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d) does not itself integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: the claim recites additional elements of an additive manufacturing apparatus
recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses that which is well-understood, routine and conventional. The recitation of broadly generating an object “based on” the categorized sub-volumes is likewise well understood, routine and conventional. Lastly the claim includes the step of receiving initial beam lattice data which is discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d) as receiving or transmitting data being well-understood, routine and conventional.
Regarding claims 2-6: the additional limitations of claims 2-6 do not add any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the determining and categorizing steps recited in claims 2-5, and the determining and generating steps in claim 6 all include steps that under broadest reasonable interpretation are steps which could be performed in the mind; thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The additional features of claims 2-6 are recited a very high level of generality; and therefore, amount to only applying the abstract idea using a generic apparatus and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the claims do not require any specific programming or structure for performing the abstract idea. The abstract idea is generally linked to the field of use of additive manufacturing which as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d) does not itself integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Moreover, claims 2-6 recite additional elements of an additive manufacturing apparatus recited at such a high level of generality that it encompasses that which is well-understood, routine and conventional. The recitation of broadly generating an object “based on” the categorized sub-volumes is likewise well understood, routine and conventional.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez et al. (WO 2018/071013; of record, herein referred to as Gonzalez) in view of Langnau (“3MF Consortium releases first standardized 3D Beam Lattice Extension,” https://www.engineering.com/3mf-consortium-releases-first-standardized-3d-beam-lattice-extension/, n.d. Web 02/2026; herein referred to as Langnau).
As to claim 1: Gonzalez discloses the claimed method (i.e., a method for generating an object using additive manufacturing) (Gonzalez at [0007], Abstract, FIG. 4) comprising:
receiving, a file at least partially encoding object model data for a three-dimensional object to be generated by an additive manufacturing apparatus (i.e., the method includes receiving a first data model of an object to be generated in additive manufacturing at a processor; the data may provide the representation of the object as a design file, wherein the arrangement of the data is encoded; and the object may be represented as a mesh, e.g., a polygon mesh, or in a series of slices, the representation may comprise a print resolution representation of the data, for each 'voxel' of an object and/or a surrounding volume (for example, a cuboid enclosing the object), and a voxel may be thought of as a volumetric pixel, any each voxel may be a print addressable area, and in some examples, voxels are defined at the print resolution of an apparatus) (Gonzalez at Abstract, [0017], [0037], [0062], [0100], [0102], [0105]);
determining, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, a volumetric data model from the volume containing the object, by performing a process (i.e., using the processor, a second data model may be determined; and determining the second data model may include generating for each of plurality of contiguous, non-overlapping sub-volumes of a volume containing the object, a sub-volume octree characterizing the sub-volume and having a root node such that determining the second data model may further include generating a volume octree characterizing the volume containing the object) (Gonzalez at Abstract, [0017], [0018], [0020], [0100]), including:
dividing a volume into sub-volumes (i.e., volumetric space is effectively subdivided into a regular grid of sub-volume cells) (Gonzalez at [0020], [0023], [0024], [0025], [0035] FIG. 2); and
categorizing the sub-volumes into: interior sub-volumes that are each wholly within the object (i.e., each volume may be categorized as one of: (i) being wholly internal to the object; (ii) being wholly external to the object; or (iii) spanning an object boundary such that a sub region volume is internal to the object and another sub region is external) (Gonzalez at [0024], [0025], [0026]);
exterior sub-volumes that are wholly outside the object (i.e., each volume may be categorized as one of: (i) being wholly internal to the object; (ii) being wholly external to the object; or (iii) spanning an object boundary such that a sub region volume is internal to the object and another sub region is external) (Gonzalez at [0024], [0025], [0026]); and
boundary sub-volumes that each partially coincide with the volume of the object (i.e., each volume may be categorized as one of: (i) being wholly internal to the object; (ii) being wholly external to the object; or (iii) spanning an object boundary such that a sub region volume is internal to the object and another sub region is external) (Gonzalez at [0024], [0025], [0026]);
iteratively repeating, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, subdivision of the boundary sub-volumes and categorization of the subdivided boundary sub-volumes until a threshold volume size is reached (i.e., the formation of nodes/volumes is carried out iteratively based on inspecting volumes represented by nodes/volumes defined in a preceding iteration until a data set comprising a representation of the formed nodes reaches a threshold size) (Gonzalez at [0043]-[0045], [0098], [0099]); and
generating, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, the three-dimensional object based on the categorized sub-volumes (Gonzalez at [0007], [0014], [0086], [0096], [0097], [0098], [0099], FIG. 4).
Gonzalez discloses receiving a first data model of an object to be generated in additive manufacturing at a processor, the data may provide the representation of the object as a design file, wherein the arrangement of the data is encoded; and the object may be represented as a mesh (e.g. a polygon mesh), or in a series of slices, the representation may comprise a print resolution representation of the data, for each 'voxel' of an object and/or a surrounding volume (for example, a cuboid enclosing the object), and a voxel may be thought of as a volumetric pixel, any each voxel may be a print addressable area, and in some examples, voxels are defined at the print resolution of an apparatus (Gonzalez at Abstract, [0017], [0037], [0062], [0100], [0102], [0105]). Gonzalez also discloses the data providing the representation of the object, as a design file, such as a 3MF file (Gonzalez at [0017]).
Though, Gonzalez fails to explicitly disclose the claimed receiving, by an additive manufacturing apparatus, a file at least partially encoding object model data for a three-dimensional object to be generated by the additive manufacturing apparatus as beam lattice data including a beam lattice of a plurality of beams, as opposed to triangle mesh, wherein determining the volumetric data model by performing the process ensures that the additive manufacturing apparatus is able to generate the three-dimensional object when encoded as the beam lattice as opposed to the triangle mesh.
However, Langnau teaches 3MF Consortium (3MF) ratified and released its Beam Lattice Specification Extension to its 3MF Core Specification, where the 3MF Beam Lattice extension is a new method for storing and transferring lattice-type geometry information (Langnau at paragraph 1). Langnau further teaches the 3MF Beam Lattice Extension simplifies creation of lattice structures for 3D printing in additive manufacturing environments, the central idea of the extension being to enrich the geometry notion of 3MF with beam lattice elements that can represent small-scale lattices as well as larger truss structures – both of which can be inefficient to handle with a mesh representation, especially in cases where the element count grows into large numbers (Langnau at paragraph 3).
Moreover, Langnau teaches the beam lattice extension inherits all the features from the 3MF Core Specification, it retains build information, colors, materials, and technology specific characteristcs like support structures all in one compact and well-structured file; and by providing support for beam lattices, 3MF solves an inoperability issue for the additive manufacturing industry and provides a solution to a problem that is not easily addressed in other file formats (Langnau at paragraph 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the receiving, by an additive manufacturing apparatus, a file at least partially encoding object model data for a three-dimensional object to be generated by the additive manufacturing apparatus as beam lattice data including a beam lattice of a plurality of beams as opposed to a triangle mesh, wherein determining the volumetric data model by performing the process ensures that the additive manufacturing apparatus is able to generate the three-dimensional object when encoded as the beam lattice as opposed to the triangle mesh, as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Langnau above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the data as a polygon mesh in Gonzalez) for another (i.e., the data as beam lattice data) to obtain predictable results, with the advantage of using 3MF’s Beam Lattice Extension is additive manufacturing allowing for improved design flexibility, lower material costs and reduced production time (as recognized by Langnau at paragraph 1).
As to claim 4: Gonzalez and Langnau teach the method of claim 1. Gonzalez, modified by Langnau (i.e., beam lattice data), further discloses the claimed method further comprising: determining, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, a capping mode of the beam lattice, wherein a volumetric extent of the beams of the beam lattice used in determining which of the sub-volumes are each wholly within one of the beams of the beam lattice, which of the sub-volumes are wholly outside of the beams of the beam lattice, and which of the sub-volumes partially coincide with one of the beams of the beam lattice is determined based on the capping mode (i.e., octrees are merged or parts thereof are extracted) (Gonzalez at [0017], [0020], [0023], [0024], [0025], [0035], [0036], [0042], [0064], [0098], [0100], [0101]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 5: Gonzalez and Langnau teach the method of claim 1. Gonzalez further discloses the claimed method further comprising: determining, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, if the volumetric data model is to be clipped and if so, applying a clipping mask to the volumetric data model to remove a portion of the volumetric data model, and wherein the clipping mask intercepts the interior sub-volumes that are greater than the threshold volume size; dividing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, each intercepted interior sub-volume into further sub-volumes; and categorizing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, each further sub-volume by determining if the further sub-volume is wholly interior to the clipped volumetric data model, wholly exterior to the clipped volumetric data model, or spans a boundary of the clipped volumetric data model (Gonzalez at [0007], [0014], [0086], [0096], [0097], [0098], [0099], FIG. 4).
As to claim 6: Gonzalez and Langnau teach the method of claim 1. Gonzalez further discloses the claimed method further comprising: determining, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, print instructions for generating the three-dimensional object based on the categorized sub-volumes, wherein generating the three-dimensional object comprises executing the print instructions (Gonzalez at [0007], [0014], [0086], [0096], [0097], [0098], [0099], FIG. 4).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez and Langnau as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holmes (US 5,497,451; of record, herein referred to as Holmes).
As to claim 2: Gonzalez and Langnau teach the method of claim 1. Gonzalez, modified by TRIVEDI, fails to disclose the claimed wherein categorizing the sub-volumes comprises determining for each of a plurality of corners of each sub-volume, if the corner coincides with one of the beams of the beam lattice, the method further comprising, for each sub-volume: if all corners of the sub-volume are interior to a same beam of the beam lattice, categorizing the sub-volume as an interior sub-volume; if all the corners of the sub-volume are outside the beams of the beam lattice, determining if any beams of the beam lattice intersect with a volume of the sub-volume, and if not, categorizing the sub-volume as an exterior sub-volume; and if at least one corner of the sub-volume is interior to one of the beams of the beam lattice and at least one corner is exterior to the one of the beams, or if all the corners are outside the beams of the beam lattice and any beams of the beam lattice intersect with the volume of the sub-volume, categorizing the sub-volume as a boundary sub-volume.
However, Holmes teaches a computerized method for decomposing a geometric model of surface or volume into finite elements (Holmes at Title). Holmes further teaches divider surfaces being used to decompose a volume into sub-volumes so at least one of the volume surfaces have a decrease in the number of edges by at least one (Holmes at column 20, lines 26-28); such that the divider surfaces which are produced throughout the decomposition process are placed in an order that corresponds to the location of each surface with respect to the original surfaces defining the volume and any other divider surface, this being done by placing each sub-volume resulting from a decomposition into an array data structure element and labeling the sub-volume the sub-volume surfaces in reference to the corresponding divider surface – the array being called a volume adjacency array (Holmes at column 21, lines 10-19).
Moreover, Holmes teaches volume adjacency array elements being classified as two types – interior and exterior array elements; where the sub-volumes associated with each of the exterior and interior types must meet certain criteria in order to be compatible with the volume adjacent array (Holmes at column 21, lines 33-42). The interior sub-volumes taught in Holmes must have four corners that form the vertex points of a 4-sided surface, and the exterior sub-volumes must have two corner vertices and one edge connecting each (Holmes at column 21, lines 42-62).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the sub-volumes being categorized either interior or exterior sub-volumes depending on the number of corners, as such is known the art as discussed in Holmes presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods for the predictable result of decomposing a geometric model of surface or volume into sub-volumes, with the added benefit of the sub-volume corner categorization to determine if the sub-volumes are interior or exterior leads to a more accurate and complete decomposition of surfaces and volumes.
As to claim 3: Gonzalez and Langnau teach the method of claim 1. Gonzalez, modified by Langnau, fails to disclose the claimed method further comprising, for each boundary sub-volume of the threshold size: determining, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, a first number of corners of the sub-volume that are interior to one of the beams of the beam lattice, and a second number of corners of the sub-volume that are exterior to the beams of the beam lattice; and categorizing, by the additive manufacturing apparatus, the sub-volume as an interior or exterior sub-volume based on the first and second number.
However, Holmes teaches a computerized method for decomposing a geometric model of surface or volume into finite elements (Holmes at Title). Holmes further teaches divider surfaces being used to decompose a volume into sub-volumes so at least one of the volume surfaces have a decrease in the number of edges by at least one (Holmes at column 20, lines 26-28); such that the divider surfaces which are produced throughout the decomposition process are placed in an order that corresponds to the location of each surface with respect to the original surfaces defining the volume and any other divider surface, this being done by placing each sub-volume resulting from a decomposition into an array data structure element and labeling the sub-volume the sub-volume surfaces in reference to the corresponding divider surface – the array being called a volume adjacency array (Holmes at column 21, lines 10-19).
Moreover, Holmes teaches volume adjacency array elements being classified as two types – interior and exterior array elements; where the sub-volumes associated with each of the exterior and interior types must meet certain criteria in order to be compatible with the volume adjacent array (Holmes at column 21, lines 33-42). The interior sub-volumes taught in Holmes must have four corners that form the vertex points of a 4-sided surface, and the exterior sub-volumes must have two corner vertices and one edge connecting each (Holmes at column 21, lines 42-62).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the sub-volumes being categorized either interior or exterior sub-volumes depending on the number of corners, as such is known the art as discussed in Holmes presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods for the predictable result of decomposing a geometric model of surface or volume into sub-volumes, with the added benefit of the sub-volume corner categorization to determine if the sub-volumes are interior or exterior leads to a more accurate and complete decomposition of surfaces and volumes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743