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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the § 112(d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, under the second step (or prong) of Step 2A, the claims reflect the disclosed technical improvement because of the vector details of the paths (p. 12). This argument is unpersuasive because the improvement is not manifest by the provision of manufacturing instructions alone, since nothing advantageous is achieved solely by the data idea. Applicant can describe that the implementation of the instructions in the claims may be used (with additional unclaimed steps) to advantageously produce a part, but the Office does not find in Applicant’s arguments proof that the claimed instructions alone put this advantage into practice.
Applicant argues that the Office mischaracterizes the MPEP, and argues that the improvement may be present in any other technology or technical field (p. 13). This argument is unpersuasive, since MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) provides that “the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology,” but as the claim stands, only instructions are provided, meaning that the relevant existing technology would have to be computer-based, but for the improvements here (e.g. an enhanced cooling effect), the relevant existing technology is a structural part and the actual additive manufacturing thereof, which is absent from the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the new reference character DS in figs. 3–7, 9, and 12 should be underlined as per 37 CFR 1.84(q).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15–22, 26–29, and 31 are 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) providing manufacturing instructions for additive manufacturing, including irradiation vectors for a layer and a following layer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed features remain as instructions and do not cause any transformation (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), nor do they produce any useful information able to be output to a user. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the method claim does not require any that its instructions be used to perform any additive manufacturing. This carries through to all claims that depend from, or incorporate, independent claims 15, 29, and 31, except for claims 23–25, 30, and 32.
As stated in the previous Office action, the Office reverses its previous position that the language of “a method of additively manufacturing a structural part” in a preamble of a claim means that the claim positively recites, and results in, the additive manufacturing of the structural part, since this preamble is better understood as a statement of purpose (under MPEP § 2111.02.II.) rather than a positive recitation of a limitation (under MPEP § 2111.02.I., which concerns limitations directed to structure more particular than a recitation of a purpose of intended use). Therefore, the Office does not find that claim 15, as amended, requires that the claimed method result in the additive manufacturing of a structural part.
The same conclusion applies to new independent claims 29 and 31.
Regarding claim 26, “use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23–25, 30, and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15–22, 26–29, and 31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
This action is made final. 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 J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights