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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/8/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference cited in Office Correspondence mailed on 6/9/2025 (Mattingly) fails to disclose releasing printing in reaction to sending/receiving identification of a product unit of a manufacturing material. The Office disagrees as Mattingly teaches an identifier which identifies the design of a physical object (see paragraph 0037, lines 2-3). Mattingly also teaches the identifier includes a design file that includes information associated with materials to be used for production of the 3D object (see paragraph 0022, lines 7-11). It is indicated that the 3D printer is to receive one or more spools or filaments of material (See paragraph 0023, lines 4-6). Therefore, the design file includes information on the material as well as the product unit (i.e. spools of material). The Office maintains the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection cited in the Office Correspondence mailed on 6/9/2025. Though not included in the previous Office Correspondence, additional support can be found in Swier et al. (US PGPub 2021/0291448) in regards to the concept of releasing a printer based on identification of a product unit (build material container) of a manufacturing material (material) (paragraph 0152, lines 6-7).
Arguments in regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as also not persuasive. Applicant argues that the “mental process” could not be accomplished, in part because the two systems can be located remote from each other. However, there is not indication in the claims or specification that the two systems are only remote from each other. The “mental process” interpretation remains proper as the two system can also be located near one another. The Office maintains the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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 1-20 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):
1. A method for operating an additive manufacturing device for additively manufacturing a component, including:
transmitting a product identification information that identifies a manufacturing material product unit; and
receiving a release information to release the additive manufacturing device in reaction to the transmitting of the product identification information.
12. A method for monitoring operation of an additive manufacturing device for additively manufacturing a component, including:
receiving a product identification information, which identifies a manufacturing material product unit;
checking at least one of the received product identification information and at least one information assigned to the received product identification information; and
transmitting a release information in dependence on the checking.
Step 1: The claims recite a method for operating an additive manufacturing device (claim 1) and a method for monitoring operation of an additive manufacturing device (claim 12). Thus, the claims are to a new or useful process which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitation “receiving a release information to release the additive manufacturing device in reaction to the transmitting of the product identification information” (claim 1) falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas because the reaction to the transmitting of the product identification information could practically be performed in the human mind. Also, the limitation “checking at least one of the received product identification information and the at least one information assigned to the receive product identification information” (claim 12) also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas because the checking of the product identification information could practically be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claims recite additional elements such as “transmitting a product identification information that identifies a manufacturing material product unit” (claim 1) and “receiving a product identification information, which identifies a manufacturing material product unit” (claim 12) which are mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions. As such, nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technical environment. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application and the claims are direct to the judicial exceptions.
Step 2B: The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements are mere data gathering and are insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more and do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattingly et al. [Mattingly] (US PGPub 2018/0257306).
As to claim 1
Mattingly discloses a method for operating an additive manufacturing device (3D printing device 200, see Fig. 4) for additively manufacturing a component (three-dimensional physical object 104, see Fig. 1), including:
transmitting a product identification information (information associated with the physical object; see paragraph 0044, lines 25-26) that identifies a manufacturing material product unit (one or more spools or filaments of material; see paragraph 0023, lines 5-6); and
receiving a release information to release the additive manufacturing device in reaction to the transmitting of the product identification information (see paragraph 0044, lines 22-27; enable the 3D printer).
As to claim 2
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the manufacturing material product unit is one of a material filament spool, a container having liquid material, and a container having powdered material (see paragraph 0023, lines 4-6).
As to claim 3
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 1, further including releasing the additive manufacturing device for additively manufacturing the component via the manufacturing material product unit that is identified by the product identification information, in dependence on the received release information (see paragraph 0044, lines 16-27).
As to claim 4
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 3, further including additively manufacturing the component by means of the manufacturing material product unit (F2), which is identified by the product identification information, by way of the released additive manufacturing device (see paragraph 0044, lines 16-27).
As to claim 5
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 1, further including:
inputting, acquiring, or selecting the product identification information before the trans- mission of the product identification information (see paragraph 0044, lines 1-27).
As to claim 6
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 5, wherein one of:
the product identification information is input via a user interface (interface; see paragraph 0019, line 4);
the product identification information is acquired via one of a sensor system and a communication interface; and
the product identification information is selected via a user interface (see paragraph 0019, lines 3-7 and paragraph 0044, lines 19-22).
As to claim 7
Mattingly discloses the method according Claim 1, wherein:
the manufacturing material product unit is selected from a plurality of manufacturing material product units, which are each identified by a product identification information for identifying the respective manufacturing material product unit (see paragraph 0022, lines 7-11 and paragraph 0023, lines 3-6).
As to claim 8
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 1, further including at least one of the following:
selecting a component to be additively manufactured in an operating interface, the com- ponent being identified via a component identification information;
transmitting a component identification information, which identifies a component selected for additive manufacturing; and
transmitting a component information, which specifies at least one a geometry feature and a material specification feature of a component selected for additive manufacturing (see paragraph 0044, lines 1-27).
As to claim 9
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 8, wherein:
the receiving of the release information further takes place in reaction to the at least one of the selection of the component to be additively manufactured, the transmission of the component identification information, and the transmission of the component information (see paragraph 0044, lines 22-27).
As to claim 11
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 1, further including receiving at least one operating parameter for operating the additive manufacturing device in reaction to the transmission of the product identification information and operating the additive manufacturing device in dependence on the at least one operating parameter received (see paragraph 0044, lines 16-27).
As to claim 12
Mattingly discloses a method for monitoring operation of an additive manufacturing device (3D printing device 200, see Fig. 4) for additively manufacturing a component (three-dimensional physical object 104, see Fig. 1), including:
receiving a product identification information (information associated with the physical object; see paragraph 0044, lines 25-26), which identifies a manufacturing material product unit (one or more spools or filaments of material; see paragraph 0023, lines 5-6);
checking at least one of the received product identification information and at least one information assigned to the received product identification information (see paragraph 0044, lines 3-10 and lines 16-22); and
transmitting a release information in dependence on the checking (see paragraph 0044, lines 22-27; enable the 3D printer).
As to claim 13
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 12, wherein:
when checking the product identification information, the product identification information is checked for reliability, for at least one of a correspondence with an entry in a list of permissible product identification information, and a presence in a virtual warehouse (see paragraph 0044, lines 8-27 and paragraph 0064, lines 1-7).
As to claim 14
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 12, further including:
retrieving an actual product information, which is assigned to the received product identification information, wherein the retrieved actual product information is checked (see paragraph 0044, lines 8-27).
As to claim 15
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 14, wherein the actual product information assigned to the received product identification information is retrieved from a database (physical objects database 435, see Fig. 4) (see paragraph 0039, lines 6-17).
As to claim 16
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 14, wherein:
the checking of the retrieved actual product information includes checking of at least one of an actual product material amount information of the actual product information and an actual product material specification information of the actual product information (see paragraph 0044, lines 1-27).
As to claim 17
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 14, wherein:
the checking of the retrieved actual product information takes place with respect to a setpoint product information, the setpoint product information including at least one of a set- point product material amount information and a setpoint product material specification information (see paragraph 0044, lines 1-27).
As to claim 18
Mattingly discloses the method according to Claim 14, further including:
updating the actual product information in dependence on at least one of:
- the checking;
- the transmitting;
- receiving of a material consumption information;
- receiving of a production progress information; and
- a setpoint product material amount information (see paragraph 0046, lines 9-13).
As to claim 20
Mattingly discloses a system (3D printer blockchain system 450, see Fig. 4) which is configured to carry out a method according to Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Mattingly fails to specifically disclose the method further including at least one of the following:
transmitting a material consumption information, which specifies an acquired or estimated material consumption of the manufacturing material product unit during the additive manufacturing of the component from the manufacturing material product unit;
transmitting a production progress information, which specifies at least one of a production progress and a completion of the component to be additively manufactured; and
receiving at least one operating parameter for operating the additive manufacturing device in reaction to the transmission of the product identification information (in regards to dependent claim 10).
Accordingly, dependent claim 10 includes allowable subject matter.
Also, Mattingly fails to specifically teach the method further including at least one of the following:
receiving at least one of a component identification information, which identifies a component selected for additive manufacturing, and a component information, which specifies at least one of a geometry feature and a material feature of a component selected for additive manufacturing, wherein the setpoint product information is dependent on at least one of the received component identification information and the received component information;
transmitting at least one operating parameter for the operation of the additive manufacturing device, wherein the at least one operating parameter is dependent on the received product identification information; and
transmitting one of an inventory information and an order request information when an inventory in a virtual warehouse reaches or falls below a predefinable minimum inventory (in regards to dependent claim 19).
Accordingly, dependent claim 19 includes allowable subject matter.
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 Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571)272-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115