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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This final action on the merits is in response to the remarks and amendments received by the office 18 November 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn as non-elected. Claims 1-8 are amended. No claims are added. No claims are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
With regards to claim 1:
Step 1: This step is directed towards whether the claim is towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The claim is directed towards a product (non-transitory machine readable medium)
Step 2A Prong 1: This step is whether or not the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim recites instructions stored thereon which perform the following function “generate data representing a three-dimensional object model to additively manufacture a three-dimensional object including a selectable first porosity to control at least one thermal parameter of the three-dimensional object according to a user specification, wherein the instructions control a fluid dispenser by causing the fluid dispenser to selectively dispense droplets during the additively manufacturing of the three-dimensional object according to a three-dimensional individually addressable array of voxels.” A broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that at least the data generation step can be performed in the human mind. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea. While the abstract idea is claimed as being performed with the use of a machine readable medium and a processor (a computer), as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: This step asks whether or not the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea the additional elements in the claim amount to the recitation of a non-transitory machine readable medium including instructions to be executed by a processor and a fluid dispenser controlled by instructions. There is no claimed improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field. The fluid dispenser is claimed with such a high degree of generality that we may broadly and reasonably interpret the fluid dispenser as being operated by a human worker reading and following the generated instructions. The claim does not recite additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: This step asks whether a claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Here, as discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include anything more than the abstract idea itself, the generic recitation of a computer and a generically recited fluid dispenser.
The claim is thus directed towards an abstract idea and not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 2, the claim further defines the thermal parameter considered by a user and controlled by selection of a desired porosity in a part to be later produced. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does the claim provide significantly more.
With regards to claims 3-8, the claim recites the intended application of the instructions without requiring any post-solution activity, a particular machine, a particular improvement or any additional limitations which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The human mind is capable of envisioning a design of a generic object to be built including desired pores of either a portion of an object or an object as a whole.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0284206 to Roberts et al. (‘206 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0056970 to Chin et al. (‘970 here4after).
Regarding claim 1, ‘206 teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, encoded with instructions executable by a processor (paragraph 0017), comprising: instructions to generate data representing a three-dimensional object model to additively manufacture a three-dimensional object including a selectable first porosity to control at least one thermal parameter of the three-dimensional object according to a user specification (paragraph 0029). ‘206, being directed to selective laser sintering or selective laser melting, does not teach or suggest a fluid dispenser as claimed.
In the closely related field of fluid deposition based additive manufacturing, ‘970 teaches a fluid dispenser controlled by a controller to produce objects with controlled porosity (paragraphs 0112-0116) for the benefit of forming via additive manufacturing object with desired properties. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘206 with those of ‘970 for the benefit of forming additive manufactured objects with controlled porosity.
Regarding claim 2 ‘206 teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium wherein the at least one thermal parameter comprises at least one of: a thermal conductivity; a heat capacity; and a specific heat capacity (paragraph 0029 – using porosity to increase cooling efficiency means that the altering the porosity also necessarily alters at least the heat capacity of the object being manufactured).
Regarding claim 3, ‘206 teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium wherein the instructions are to implement the selectable first porosity according to a selectable degree of fusing the build material as at least one of: unfused powder build material; and at least partially fused powder build material (paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 4, ‘206 teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium wherein three-dimensional object comprises a first portion, wherein the instructions are to implement the three-dimensional object with substantially the entire first portion comprising a selectable porosity, on a voxel-by-voxel basis, to cause the at least one thermal parameter of the first portion to exhibit substantial uniformity (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 5, ‘206 teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of comprising at least one of: the first portion comprises the entire three-dimensional object; or the first portion comprising an interior portion of the three-dimensional object and an exterior portion at least partially containing the interior portion, wherein the exterior portion comprises a selectable second porosity different from the selectable first porosity (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 6, ‘206 teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium wherein at least a first portion of the three-dimensional object exhibits, via the selectable first porosity, a selectable anisotropic profile of the at least one thermal parameter within the three-dimensional object (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 7, ‘206 teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium wherein the instructions are to implement the selectable first porosity according to a plurality of different porosity regions, each different porosity region having a different at least one thermal parameter within the three-dimensional object, wherein the different porosity regions each have at least one of a selectable volume, a selectable location, and a selectable shape (paragraphs 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 8, ‘206 teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium wherein the instructions are to implement the selectable first porosity in the three-dimensional object according to a three-dimensional individually addressable array of voxels to selectively control the at least one thermal parameter on a voxel-by-voxel basis throughout at least a portion of the three- dimensional object (paragraphs 0029-0032, 0036).
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the instant application applicant argues:
The amended claims overcome the previously proffered 35 USC 101 rejection.
The previous prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 is overcome because the ‘206 reference does not teach fluid deposition.
Regarding the first argument, examiner disagrees. The 35 USC 101 rejection has been modified to explain examiner’s position with respect to amended claims.
Regarding the second argument, examiner agrees. Accordingly, and updated search was conducted and newly identified relevant prior art has been applied.
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 John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743