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 the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 and 05/25/2023 are being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Examiner is guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019); the October 2019 Update of the 2019 Revised Guidance (Oct. 17, 2019); 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (July 17, 2024), and the USPTO’s Paten Subject Matter Eligibility Memorandums of August 4, 2025 and December 5, 2025.
Step 1
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U. S. ____ (2014).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses a computer system (e.g., hardware such as a processor and memory) that implements the recited functions. If assuming that the system comprises a device or set of devices, then the system is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
Claim 14 is directed to a statutory category, because a series of recited steps satisfies the requirements of a process (a series of acts). (Step 1: Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more of organizing software components. The claim recites:
14. A process for employing an analysis tool for multi-laser additive manufacturing comprising:
configuring a build file module;
operatively connecting a preprocessor with the build file module;
operatively connecting a prime module with the preprocessor; and
operatively connecting a defect code module with the prime module;
The recited limitations represent a process of configuring and connecting software modules. As such, the claim as currently recited is being directed to the abstract idea of organizing information processing or setting up a software architecture. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A – Prong 2
In Prong Two, the Examiner determines whether claim 14, as a whole, recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, i.e., whether the additional elements apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. If the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception. See id., 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “An additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” is indicative of integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The Examiner determined that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The claim recites additional elements – using a preprocessor to communicate with software modules.
The claim does not recite, e.g., controlling of operation of an additive manufacturing machine; processing of build files; controlling laser operation; modification of manufacturing parameters, or improvement to additive manufacturing. Instead, the claim merely establishes relationship between software modules. Thus, the claim appears to define a software architecture instead of technological process. However, the preprocessor in each step is recited (or implied) at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually; there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, - their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
The recited steps do not control or improve operation of a machine (MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Therefore, claim 14 as a whole, outputs only data structure, - everything remains in the form of a code stored in the computer memory. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No).
Step 2B
If a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether the provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
The method would require a processor and memory in order to perform basic computer functions of receiving information, storing the information in a database, retrieving information from the database, comparing data, and outputting said information. These components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality. Based on the Specification, the invention utilizes conventional communication networks and generic processors, which can be found in mobile devices or desktop computers, conventional memory and display devices, and the functions performed by said generic computer elements are basic functions of a computer - performing a mathematical operation, receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data - have recognized by the courts as routine and conventional activity. Thus, the background of the current application does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Also, the claim does not involve a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces, as asserted, by receiving information from an external source of data. The receiving of data from an external source over a network, such as via the Internet, can fairly be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity that does not receive patentable weight. See Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity). Accordingly, a conclusion that the recited steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, the recited functions do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. There are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. The claim merely recites generic operations: configuring modules, and connecting modules. There is no indication that, e.g., said modules have unconventional functionality; said connections improve computer performance; the architecture reduces processing time; the architecture reduces memory usage, or solves a technological problem. Simply naming modules as a “prime module” or “defect code module” does not supply an inventive concept absent recited functionality.
Accordingly, claim 14 is not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and is not eligible subject matter under § 101. (Step 2B: No).
Because Applicant’s apparatus claim 1 adds nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, claim 1 too is patent ineligi-ble under §101.
Further, the limitations recited in dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and mathematical concepts, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). E.g., the dependent claims recite: determining stripe location, size, and shape; validating build parameters; generating temperature maps; generating time-location maps; predicting defect locations; calculating a quality metric from a ratio. These activities involve mathematical calculations, data analysis, modeling and prediction, which are covered by “Mental Processes” and/or “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract idea.
Further, the limitations recited in the dependent claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These claims do not recite, e.g., controlling of operation of an additive manufacturing machine; processing of build files; controlling laser operation; modification of manufacturing parameters, or improvement to additive manufacturing. Instead, the claim merely establishes relationship between software modules. The generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually; there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, - their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). The recited steps do not control or improve operation of a machine (MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the recited limitations in the dependent claims do not provide an inventive concept. There is no indication of technological improvements, such as automatically modifying laser scan paths based on the predicted defects; adjusting laser power, scan speed, or hatch spacing using the analysis; there is no explicit recitation of, e.g., modifying the build process, or controlling the additive manufacturing machine based on said “determining”, “predicting” and “generating” steps. The final output is a quality metric, which could be characterized as information rather than control of manufacturing. Similar to Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016) (Power Group), claims’ invocation of computers, networks, and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The dependent claims do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claim, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Analogous to Power Group, the dependent claims do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. As a result, the claim does not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. The claim does not invoke any assertedly inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information - to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users - by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis into patent eligible subject matter. Merely obtaining and selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. Therefore, the recited steps represent implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer, or “reciting a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information despite being applied on a general purpose computer” Versata, p. 53; Ultramerical, pp. 11-12.
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burlatsky et al. (US 10,888,924 B2) (IDS of 05/25/2023).
Claims 1 and 14. Burlatsky et al. (Burlatsky) discloses an analysis tool for multi-laser additive manufacturing comprising: a build file module; a preprocessor in operative communication with the build file module; a prime module in operative communication with the preprocessor; and a defect code module in operative communication with the prime module. C. 2, L. 20-33; C. 3, L. 16-67; C. 4, L. 1-7
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 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.
Claims 2-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burlatsky in view of Ong et al. (US 2021/0031458 A1).
Claim 2. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the build file module includes a variety of build file inputs that relate to build files of an additive manufacturing machine and a part. Burlatsky C. 2, L. 22-27. While Burlatsky disclose the use of software tools operated based on received inputs, Burlatsky does not explicitly teach the use of build files, which is disclosed in Ong et al. (Ong). [0026]; [0034]; [0158]; [0159]; [0219].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burlatsky to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Ong, for the benefit of yielding high and consistent build quality in an additive manufacturing process, as specifically stated in Ong. [0046]
Claim 3. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 2, wherein build file inputs are selected from the group consisting of build conditions, primary process parameters, scan region for each laser, and a specimen STL or mesh file. Burlatsky; C. 3, L. 16-43; Ong, [0026]; [0034]; [0158]; [0159]; [0219]. Same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Claim 4. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 3, wherein the build conditions are selected from the group consisting of laser overlap, stripe width, angle and overlap, layer thickness, interlayer dwell time and powder particle size. Burlatsky; C. 9, “L is stripe width”; Cl. 20
Claim 5. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 3, wherein the primary process parameters are selected from the group consisting of scan speed, laser power and spot size for each laser. Burlatsky; C. 9, “V is scanning velocity”; Cl. 1
Claim 6. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the pre-processor includes code to extract process parameters and laser regions from a scan strategy build file (the process map) in the build file module, and seamlessly pass this information to the defect code module for further defect analysis. Burlatsky; C. 2, L. 20-33; C. 3, L. 34-40; C. 4, L. 17-47; Ong, [0026]; [0034]; [0158]; [0159]; [0219]. Same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Claim 7. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the prime module is configured to determine a location, a size and a shape of stripes from input parameters which are validated against an actual multi-laser build file input. Burlatsky; C. 2, L. 20-22; C. 4, L. 54-58; C. 8, L. 38-40; C. 9, “L is stripe width”; Cl. 20; Ong, [0026]; [0034]; [0158]; [0159]; [0219]. Same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Claim 8. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the defect code module is configured to produce outputs selected from the group consisting of a temperature map representing local temperature increase as a result of prior layers, stripes and hatching, laser thermal interaction; two dimension and three dimension defect maps representing a lack of fusion and keyhole porosities; and a time-location map representing the location of each laser during a build. Figs. 9-19; C. 8, L. 29-67; C. 10, L. 59-67; C. 11, L. 21-65
Claim 9. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the defect code module is configured to locate lasers at any specific time during a build. C. 4, L. 54-67; C. 14, L. 5-8; C. 16, L. 14-22
Claim 10. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the defect code module is configured to generate a time-location map for lasers using inputs including scan speed, hatch distance and stripe angle. C. 4, L. 47-67; C. 8, L. 58-67; C. 9, L. 65 (Ist is hatching distance); C. 10, L. 54, 62-67; C. 14, L. 5-8; C. 16, L. 14-22; Cl. 20
Claim 11. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the defect code module is configured to employ a defect code to predict the location, size and shape of the stripes from input parameters, such as bounding boxes for each laser, a stripe width, angle and overlap, and a height of layer. C. 2, L. 20-33; C. 4, L. 28-67; C. 7, L. 62-67; C. 8, L. 1-46
Claim 12. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the analysis tool is configured to produce a preliminary quality metric as a function of a ratio between a number of points associated with defects and total number of points. While Burlatsky does not specifically teach said quality metric limitation, Burlatsky discloses: “a control scheme can plot an instant point in the build on the process map, and adjust the power or speed to be outside of the region of the defect
conditions, thereby facilitating the production of a higher quality, lower defect
component.” Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burlatsky to include the recited limitations, as suggested in Burlatsky, for the benefit of assessing of said increase in quality.
Claim 13. The analysis tool for additive manufacturing according to claim 1, wherein the analysis tool is configured to employ a time search algorithm to locate lasers at any time. Figs. 9-19; C. 4, L. 47-67; C. 8, L. 29-67; C. 10, L. 54, 59-67; C. 11, L. 21-65; C. 14, L. 5-8; C. 16, L. 14-22; Cl. 20
Claim 15. The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the prime module to determine a location, a size and a shape of stripes from input parameters which are validated against an actual multi-laser build file input. C. 2, L. 20-22; C. 4, L. 54-58; C. 8, L. 38-40; C. 9, “L is stripe width”; Cl. 20; Ong, [0026]; [0034]; [0158]; [0159]; [0219]. Same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Claim 16. The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the defect code module to produce outputs selected from the group consisting of a temperature map representing local temperature increase as a result of prior layers, stripes and hatching, laser thermal interaction; two dimension and three dimension defect maps representing a lack of fusion and keyhole porosities; and a time-location map representing the location of each laser during a build. Figs. 9-19; C. 8, L. 29-67; C. 10, L. 59-67; C. 11, L. 21-65
Claim 17. The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the defect code module to locate lasers at any specific time during a build. C. 4, L. 54-67; C. 14, L. 5-8; C. 16, L. 14-22
Claim 18. The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the defect code module to generate a time-location map for lasers using inputs including scan speed, hatch distance and stripe angle. C. 4, L. 47-67; C. 8, L. 58-67; C. 9, L. 65 (Ist is hatching distance); C. 10, L. 54, 62-67; C. 14, L. 5-8; C. 16, L. 14-22; Cl. 20
Claim 19. The process of claim 14, further comprising: configuring the defect code module to employ a defect code to predict the location, size and shape of the stripes from input parameters, such as bounding boxes for each laser, a stripe width, angle and overlap, and a height of layer. C. 2, L. 20-33; C. 4, L. 28-67; C. 7, L. 62-67; C. 8, L. 1-46
Claim 20. The process of claim 19, further comprising: configuring the analysis tool to produce a preliminary quality metric as a function of a ratio between a number of points associated with defects and total number of points. While Burlatsky does not specifically teach said quality metric limitation, Burlatsky discloses: “a control scheme can plot an instant point in the build on the process map, and adjust the power or speed to be outside of the region of the defect conditions, thereby facilitating the production of a higher quality, lower defect component.” Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burlatsky to include the recited limitations, as suggested in Burlatsky, for the benefit of assessing of said increase in quality.
Citations of pertinent art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sina Malakpour Estalaki et al. “Predicting Defects in Laser Powder Bed Fusion using in-situ Thermal Imaging Data and Machine Learning” arXiv:2112.11212(cs), 2021, pp. 1-23, discloses the use of thermal history to predict porosity defects in laser powder bed fusion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Igor Borissov whose telephone number is 571-272-6801. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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 Center system.
For more information about the Patent Center, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/IGOR N BORISSOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 7/30/2026
Prosecution Insights