DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 13 - 22 are presented for examination. Claims 13 - 22 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 13 - 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 13 - 22 recite numbers referencing elements in the drawings, but the element numbers are not necessary to be recited in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, line12 recites “at least one database which is created with mechanical property data “, but it is recommended the phrase recites “at least one database created with mechanical property data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processor unit that is configured to allow, processor unit is configured to enable, processor unit is configured to allow in claim 13, processor unit is configured to allow in claim 14, processor unit is configured to allow in claim 15, processor unit is configured to allow in claim 16, processor unit is configured to allow in claim 17, and processor unit is configured to allow in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 lacks antecedent basis for “produced by the manufacturer” (Claim 13, line 10).
Dependent claims 14 - 22 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 13.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “produced by a manufacturer”.
Claims 13 and 21 lack antecedent basis for “the test data” (Claim 13, line 13; claim 21, line 5).
Dependent claims 14 - 20 and 22 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 13.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “with test data” or claim 13, and “test data” for claim 21.
Claims 13 and 15 lack antecedent basis for “the designer” (Claim 13, line 21 - 22; claim 15, line 4).
Dependent claims 14 and 16 - 22 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 13.
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a designer”.
Claim 15 lacks antecedent basis for “the safety coefficients” (Claim 15, line 2).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “safety coefficients”.
Claims 15 and 18 lack antecedent basis for “the direction” (Claim 15, line 5; claim 18, line 3).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “a direction”.
Claim 17 lacks antecedent basis for “account the excess number” (Claim 17, line 6).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “account excess number”.
Claim 21 lacks antecedent basis for “allow the position” (Claim 21, line 3).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “allow position”.
Claim 22 lacks antecedent basis for “the highest modulus” (Claim 22, line 4).
Suggested language: Amend the claim to recite “highest modulus”.
The term “almost” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear in the claim how much or how close in terms of a tolerance, threshold, or some type of value the threshold value needs to be for the threshold value to “almost” completely correspond to the strain energy variation. The language in the claim is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 14 - 22 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 13.
Suggested language: Amend the language of “almost” or “almost completely” from the claim.
The term “relative” in claim itself is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relative” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much variation the strain energy must or need to have in order to be considered having “relative variation”. The phrase of the claim is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 14 - 22 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 13.
Suggested language: Amend the limitation to remove “relative” from the claim.
Claim 22 recites “(Young’s Modulus)”, however, since the phrase is in parenthesis, it is unclear if this phrase is supposed to be a part of the claim. It is unclear if the phrase in parenthesis is supposed to be part of the claim or not, and renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 - 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 13: The prior art of Han et al. (U.S. Patent 11,669,659 B2) discloses numerical modeling using a computational mesh and assigning properties, along with testing on a sample to obtain experimental data, mechanical properties including stress-strain relationships and Young’s Modulus, and generating a model to obtain simulation results, Schwartz et al. (U.S. Patent 11,754,996 B2) discloses a geometrical layout of a part in the form of a three-dimensional model, orientations for the part using a vector for the part on a build plate for 3D printing, Coffman et al. (EP 3316156 A1) discloses mesh analysis for digital models and machine learning models using outputs of the mesh analysis to manufacture a physical object from a CAD design, and Gunther (U.S. Patent 10,183,329 B2) adds additive manufacturing to produce parts using synchronized dimensional data and layers, a virtual model of the fabricated part.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Han, Schwartz, Coffman, and Gunther, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a topology optimization system for producing a part on a table of an additive manufacturing machine, including the steps of using a mechanical test to obtain test data with different angle values of the specimen parts and the table, and using the table to the orientation of the part for the highest or optimum production using the table by using the orientation and/or position of the specimen to match mechanical properties, and based on a threshold value being reached with strain energy related to the part on the table, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 14 - 22 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 13, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights