DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 14-25 are presented for examination. Claims 1-7 stand withdrawn. Claims 16-25 are new.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group III corresponding with claims 14-15 in the reply filed on 20 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings received on 26 January 2024 are accepted.
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 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 14 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
14. A method of creating a lattice structure for a three-dimensional object to be built by an additive manufacturing machine comprising:
identifying a first region of a lattice structure to fill in with first conformal lattice cells that satisfy a specified dimension criterion;
identifying a second region of the lattice structure to fill in with uniform lattice cells that are subject to trimming, wherein the second region has a size that would cause conformal lattice cells if placed in the second region to violate the specified dimension criterion; and
forming the lattice structure based on filling the first region with the first conformal lattice cells, and filling the second region with the uniform lattice cells a collection of which are trimmed.
The claim recitation “to be build by an additive manufacturing machine” is intended use recitation of the preamble and is not given patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.02.
Identifying a first region of the lattice structure corresponds with mental process design steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Whether or not the region satisfies the specified dimension criterion is further mental process design steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Identifying a second region of the lattice structure is mental process design steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Determining that the specified dimension criterion would not be met is further mental process design steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Forming the lattice structure based on filling the first region with conformal lattice cells and the second region with uniform lattice cells a collection of which are trimmed is further mental design steps. Forming the design in the abstract and/or with the aid of pen and paper to identify the respective regions of the design evaluated, judged, or opinioned to be for each region.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 14 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 14 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
15. The method of claim 14, wherein a first conformal lattice cell in the first region has a different size, shape, or orientation than a second conformal lattice cell in the first region, and wherein untrimmed lattice cells of the uniform lattice cells in the second region have a same shape, a same size, and a same orientation.
Choosing to have different conformal cells have different size, shape, or orientation is a design decision which can be made mentally as an evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the first conformal lattice cell has a same arrangement of beams as the second conformal lattice cell, and wherein the arrangement of beams of the first conformal lattice cell has the different size, shape, or orientation than the arrangement of beams of the second conformal lattice cell.
The arrangement of beams being the same for the different conformal lattice cells is a design decision which can be made mentally as an evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 17 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
17. The method of claim 14, wherein untrimmed lattice cells of the uniform lattice cells in the second region have a same shape, a same size, and a same orientation.
The untrimmed lattice cells having a uniform shape, size, and orientation is a design decision which can be made mentally as an evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 17 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 17 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 18 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
18. The method of claim 14, wherein the first region of the lattice structure includes a first layer of conformal lattice cells, and the second region of the lattice structure includes a second layer of uniform lattice cells a collection of which are trimmed, wherein the first layer and the second layer are one on top of another.
Having a design where a second/first layer is on top of the other is a design decision which can be made mentally as an evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 18 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 18 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 19 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
19. The method of claim 18, wherein the first region of the lattice structure includes a third layer of conformal lattice cells, wherein: the second layer is on top of a stack including the first layer and the third layer, or the second layer is underneath the stack including the first layer and the third layer.
Deciding for the lattice to have a third layer of conformal lattice cells is a design decision which can be made mentally as an evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 19 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 19 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 20 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 20 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
20. The method of claim 14, wherein the object comprises a cushion that comprises the lattice structure.
The object being a cushion is a recitation generally linking to a field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 20 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 21 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
21. The method of claim 14, wherein the lattice cells in the first region comprise a first lattice cell that has a characteristic different from a characteristic of a second lattice cell in the first region.
Choosing to have different cell characteristics for different cells within the conformal lattice regions is a design decision which can be made mentally as an evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 21 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 21 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 22 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the first lattice cell and the second lattice cell has a same arrangement of interconnected beams, and wherein the arrangement of interconnected beams of the first lattice cell is deformed with respect to the arrangement of interconnected beams of the second lattice cell.
The arrangement of interconnected beams for the lattice design is a design decision which can be made mentally as an evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 22 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 22 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 23 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
23. The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining dimensions of a volume in which the lattice structure is to occupy,
wherein the identifying of the first region to fill in with the conformal lattice cells and the identifying of the second region to fill in with the lattice cells that are subject to trimming are based on the determined dimensions.
Determining dimensions of a volume is a design decision which can be made mentally as an observation, evaluation, and/or judgment.
Identifying a region to fill with conformal lattice cells and a region subject to trimming is a design decision which can be made mentally as an evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 23 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 23 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 24 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 24 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
24. The method of claim 14, further comprising: outputting a representation of the lattice structure to build the three-dimensional object using the lattice structure by an additive manufacturing machine.
Outputting a representation to be built is not an active recitation of actually building the 3D object.
The generic recitation of outputting is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 24 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
24. The method of claim 14, further comprising: outputting a representation of the lattice structure to build the three-dimensional object using the lattice structure by an additive manufacturing machine.
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data transmitting and storing examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of outputting recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Examiner §101 Subject Matter Eligibility Recommendation
Claim 25 recites “causing an additive manufacturing apparatus to build the three-dimensional object using the lattice structure.” This causes physical production of an actual physical product. This is considered subject matter eligible for analogous reasons as Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981).
Accordingly, Examiner suggests amending claim 14 to recite:
14. A method of creating a lattice structure for a three-dimensional object to be built by an additive manufacturing machine comprising:
identifying a first region of a lattice structure to fill in with first conformal lattice cells that satisfy a specified dimension criterion;
identifying a second region of the lattice structure to fill in with uniform lattice cells that are subject to trimming, wherein the second region has a size that would cause conformal lattice cells if placed in the second region to violate the specified dimension criterion; [[and]]
forming the lattice structure based on filling the first region with the first conformal lattice cells, and filling the second region with the uniform lattice cells a collection of which are trimmed; and
causing [[an]] the additive manufacturing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-17 and 20-25
Claims 14-17 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 11,659,889 B2 Perrault, et al. [herein “Perrault”] in view of US patent 12,391,000 B2 Vernon, et al. [herein “Vernon”].
Claim 14 recites “14. A method of creating a lattice structure for a three-dimensional object to be built by an additive manufacturing machine.” Perrault abstract discloses:
A midsole for an article of footwear including a three dimensional mesh including interconnected unit cells …. The plurality of interconnected unit cells may be organized in a warped cubic lattice structure. …. The midsole may be manufactured using an additive manufacturing process.
Organizing the 3D mesh into a warped cubic lattice structure corresponds with creating a lattice structure for a 3D object to be build by an additive manufacturing process.
Claim 14 further recites “comprising: identifying a first region of a lattice structure to fill in with first conformal lattice cells that satisfy a specified dimension criterion.” Perrault column 12 lines 35-38 disclose “A warped cubic shaped lattice cell is a three-dimensional lattice cell bound by six faces joined along their edges with at least one face being different from the others.” A warped lattice cell corresponds with a first region of a lattice structure with conformal lattice cells.
Perrault column 17 lines 10-12 disclosed “The volume occupied by unit cell 900 may be for example 3 mm3 to 30 mm3, 5 mm3 to 20 mm3, 7 mm3 to 15 mm3, 8 mm3 to 12 mm3.” The volume of the unit cells expressed as a range corresponds to a specified dimension criterion.
But Perrault’s dimension criterion is expressed as a constraint which must be satisfied and not a criterion which might not be satisfied. Accordingly, Perrault does not explicitly disclose regions that violate the specified dimension criteria; however, in analogous art of creation of lattice structures for additive manufacturing, Vernon column 9 lines 36-39 teaches “a conditional feature may be omitted if a unit cell is deformed beyond a certain threshold such that the conditional feature would be too small or too warped if it was to be retained.” A threshold amount of warping corresponds with a specified dimension criterion wherein different actions (i.e. conditional features) are omitted when the specified threshold is not satisfied.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Perrault and Vernon. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a threshold to determine whether a unit cell is ‘too warped’ into the system of a warped cubic lattice structure for the advantageous purpose of “the faces of the unit cell 132 coincide with a design space 136, whereas the unit cell 132 is defined entirely within a natural space 138” without being too deformed. See Vernon column 9 lines 34-36.
Claim 14 further recites “identifying a second region of the lattice structure to fill in with uniform lattice cells that are subject to trimming, wherein the second region has a size that would cause conformal lattice cells if placed in the second region to violate the specified dimension criterion.” Perrault column 12 lines 63-65 disclose “unit cells 322 may be arranged in a warped cubic lattice structure including a plurality of unwarped cubic lattice cells having different volumes and cubic geometries.” Unwarped cubic lattice cells correspond with uniform lattice cells of a second region.
Perrault column 12 lines 55-57 disclose “Incomplete unit cells may be a by-product of post-formation processes such as cutting or trimming of unit cells.” Trimming of unit cells corresponds with incomplete unit lattice cells that are subject to trimming. Perrault column 12 lines 21-24 disclose “one or more partial unit cells forming unit cells 322 may be arranged in a lattice cell having a purely cubic or warped cubic shape.” The purely cubic lattice cells which are partial unit cells are uniform lattice cells subject to trimming.
Perrault column 17 lines 10-12 disclosed “The volume occupied by unit cell 900 may be for example 3 mm3 to 30 mm3, 5 mm3 to 20 mm3, 7 mm3 to 15 mm3, 8 mm3 to 12 mm3.” The volume of the unit cells expressed as a range corresponds to a specified dimension criterion.
But Perrault’s dimension criterion is expressed as a constraint which must be satisfied and not a criterion which might not be satisfied. Accordingly, Perrault does not explicitly disclose regions that violate the specified dimension criteria; however, in analogous art of creation of lattice structures for additive manufacturing, Vernon column 9 lines 36-39 teaches “a conditional feature may be omitted if a unit cell is deformed beyond a certain threshold such that the conditional feature would be too small or too warped if it was to be retained.” A threshold amount of warping corresponds with a specified dimension criterion wherein different actions (i.e. conditional features) are omitted when the specified threshold is not satisfied.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Perrault and Vernon. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a threshold to determine whether a unit cell is ‘too warped’ into the system of a warped cubic lattice structure for the advantageous purpose of “the faces of the unit cell 132 coincide with a design space 136, whereas the unit cell 132 is defined entirely within a natural space 138” without being too deformed. See Vernon column 9 lines 34-36.
Claim 14 further recites “and forming the lattice structure based on filling the first region with the first conformal lattice cells, and filling the second region with the uniform lattice cells a collection of which are trimmed.” Perrault column 12 lines 58-62 disclose “Unit cells 322 may be arranged in a warped lattice structure including a plurality of warped lattice cells having different volumes and geometries. In some embodiments, a portion of a warped lattice structure may include unwrapped lattice cells (i.e. purely cubic lattice cells).” Perrault column 12 lines 55-57 disclose “Incomplete unit cells may be a by-product of post-formation processes such as cutting or trimming of unit cells.” Trimming of unit cells corresponds with lattice cells that are subject to trimming.
Accordingly, warped lattice cells correspond to a filling of a first region. Unwarped cubic lattice cells correspond with uniform lattice cells of a second region. The warped cubic lattice structure including both warped and unwarped cubic lattice cells is forming a lattice structure based on filling both first and second regions accordingly.
Claim 15 further recites “15. The method of claim 14, wherein a first conformal lattice cell in the first region has a different size, shape, or orientation than a second conformal lattice cell in the first region.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “shape.”
Perrault column 12 lines 35-38 disclose “A warped cubic shaped lattice cell is a three-dimensional lattice cell bound by six faces joined along their edges with at least one face being different from the others.” Perrault column 12 lines 40-42 disclose “The side faces of a warped cubic shaped lattice cell need not have the same shape or area, and the side faces need not be squares.” Having at least one face being different and not the same shape corresponds with the warped unit cell having a different shape than another warped conformal lattice cell.
Claim 15 further recites “and wherein untrimmed lattice cells of the uniform lattice cells in the second region have a same shape, a same size, and a same orientation.” Perrault column 12 lines 63-65 disclose “unit cells 322 may be arranged in a warped cubic lattice structure including a plurality of unwarped cubic lattice cells having different volumes and cubic geometries.” Perrault column 12 lines 32-35 disclose “A purely cubic shaped lattice cell is a three-dimensional lattice cell bound by six identical square faces joined along their edges. Three edges join at each corner to form vertexes of the purely cubic shaped lattice cell.” Unwarped purely cubic shaped lattice cells correspond with untrimmed lattice cells having a same shape, size and orientation. Identical square faces correspond with the same shape, size, and orientation.
Claim 16 further recites “16. The method of claim 15, wherein the first conformal lattice cell has a same arrangement of beams as the second conformal lattice cell.” Perrault column 12 lines 45-51 discloses:
As used herein a "complete unit cell" means a unit cell that includes all the struts that define the unit cell's base geometry. A complete unit cell is not missing all or a portion of any strut that defines the unit cell's base geometry. In some embodiments, 90% or more of the unit cells 322 defining three dimensional mesh 320 may be complete unit cells.
Complete unit cells which are not missing any strut that defines a unit cell’s base geometry corresponds with lattice cells having a same arrangement of beams.
Claim 16 further recites “and wherein the arrangement of beams of the first conformal lattice cell has the different size, shape, or orientation than the arrangement of beams of the second conformal lattice cell.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “shape.”
Perrault column 12 lines 35-38 disclose “A warped cubic shaped lattice cell is a three-dimensional lattice cell bound by six faces joined along their edges with at least one face being different from the others.” Perrault column 12 lines 40-42 disclose “The side faces of a warped cubic shaped lattice cell need not have the same shape or area, and the side faces need not be squares.” Having at least one face being different and not the same shape corresponds with the warped unit cell having a different shape than another warped conformal lattice cell.
Claim 17 further recites “17. The method of claim 14, wherein untrimmed lattice cells of the uniform lattice cells in the second region have a same shape, a same size, and a same orientation.” Perrault column 12 lines 63-65 disclose “unit cells 322 may be arranged in a warped cubic lattice structure including a plurality of unwarped cubic lattice cells having different volumes and cubic geometries.” Perrault column 12 lines 32-35 disclose “A purely cubic shaped lattice cell is a three-dimensional lattice cell bound by six identical square faces joined along their edges. Three edges join at each corner to form vertexes of the purely cubic shaped lattice cell.” Unwarped purely cubic shaped lattice cells correspond with untrimmed lattice cells having a same shape, size and orientation. Identical square faces correspond with the same shape, size, and orientation.
Perrault column 12 lines 21-24 disclose “one or more partial unit cells forming unit cells 322 may be arranged in a lattice cell having a purely cubic or warped cubic shape.” The purely cubic lattice cells which are partial unit cells are uniform lattice cells subject to trimming.
Claim 20 further recites “20. The method of claim 14, wherein the object comprises a cushion that comprises the lattice structure.” Perrault title discloses “Footwear Midsole with Warped Lattice Structure.” Perrault column 5 line 67 to column 6 line 3 disclose “The features of an article of footwear (e.g., shape, components, and materials used to make footwear) may be altered to produce desired characteristics, for example, cushioning, support, stability, ride, and propulsion characteristics.” A midsole providing a cushioning corresponds with a cushion object.
Claim 21 further recites “21. The method of claim 14, wherein the lattice cells in the first region comprise a first lattice cell that has a characteristic different from a characteristic of a second lattice cell in the first region.” Perrault column 8 lines 17-24 disclose:
The base geometries of the regions may be adapted to the specific requirements of that region. For example, a less dense unit cell geometry (e.g., cubic) may be used in a region with reduced density and/or stiffness requirements. Additionally or alternatively, one or more dimensions of the unit cells in the first region may differ from those of the unit cells in the second region.
Different density or stiffness correspond to respective regions having different characteristics.
Claim 22 further recites “22. The method of claim 21, wherein the first lattice cell and the second lattice cell has a same arrangement of interconnected beams, and wherein the arrangement of interconnected beams of the first lattice cell is deformed with respect to the arrangement of interconnected beams of the second lattice cell.” Perrault column 12 lines 45-51 discloses:
As used herein a "complete unit cell" means a unit cell that includes all the struts that define the unit cell's base geometry. A complete unit cell is not missing all or a portion of any strut that defines the unit cell's base geometry. In some embodiments, 90% or more of the unit cells 322 defining three dimensional mesh 320 may be complete unit cells.
Complete unit cells which are not missing any strut that defines a unit cell’s base geometry corresponds with lattice cells having a same arrangement of interconnected beams.
Perrault column 24 lines 37-40 disclose “reducing or eliminating incomplete unit cells in a midsole. Customizing a warped cubic lattice structure may result in only complete unit cells being located in a three dimensional mesh.” Having a reduced number of incomplete unit cells corresponds with cells having a same arrangement of interconnected beams.
Claim 23 further recites “23. The method of claim 14, further comprising: determining dimensions of a volume in which the lattice structure is to occupy, wherein the identifying of the first region to fill in with the conformal lattice cells and the identifying of the second region to fill in with the lattice cells that are subject to trimming are based on the determined dimensions.” Perrault column 24 lines 42-45 discloses “And thus reduce or eliminate post-formation processing steps, such as cutting or trimming, needed to produce a midsole with the desired volumetric characteristics.” Trimming needed to produce desired volumetric characteristics corresponds with determining a volume in which the lattice structure is to occupy subject to trimming necessary to produce the determined dimensions.
Claim 24 further recites “24. The method of claim 14, further comprising: outputting a representation of the lattice structure to build the three-dimensional object using the lattice structure by an additive manufacturing machine.” Perrault figure 10 item (1008) discloses “Form three-dimensional mesh including a plurality of interconnected unit cells based on the biometric data profile.” Forming the 3D mesh corresponds to outputting a representation of lattice structure to build the 3D lattice structure for additive manufacturing.
Perrault column 34 lines 4-5 disclose “forming a three dimension mesh may include an additive manufacturing process.” Forming with an additive manufacturing process corresponds with causing an additive manufacturing apparatus to build the 3D object. See further Perrault column 26 lines 19-25.
Claim 25 further recites “25. The method of claim 14, further comprising: causing an additive manufacturing apparatus to build the three-dimensional object using the lattice structure.” Perrault column 34 lines 4-5 disclose “forming a three dimension mesh may include an additive manufacturing process.” Forming with an additive manufacturing process corresponds with causing an additive manufacturing apparatus to build the 3D object. See further Perrault column 26 lines 19-25.
Dependent Claims 18 and 19
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrault and Vernon as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US patent 9,811,620 B2 Ruto, et al. [herein “Ruto”].
Claim 18 further recites “18. The method of claim 14, wherein the first region of the lattice structure includes a first layer of conformal lattice cells, and the second region of the lattice structure includes a second layer of uniform lattice cells a collection of which are trimmed, wherein the first layer and the second layer are one on top of another.” Perrault column 24 lines 4-8 disclose;
As shown for example in FIGS. 14 and 15B, warped and unwarped cubic lattice cells 1302/1302 may be arranged in layers. The number of layers, the volume, and the cubic geometry of the lattice cells may be customized to the shape an individual's foot, or group of individual's feet.
The respective warped and unwarped layers correspond with first and second regions.
Perrault does not explicitly disclose which of the layers are unwarped; however, in analogous art of lattice structure interfacing, Ruto column 5 lines 43-45 disclose “When lattice structures are created by the program 116, lattice beams can be trimmed at the surface of the lattice design space.” Lattice beams being trimmed at the surfaces correspond with top and bottom layers. That is, surfaces occur at tops and bottoms. Accordingly, the second region corresponding with trimmed lattice cells is either on top or below other conformal lattice cell layers. Ruto column 6 line 33 teaches “create an overlap between lattice and solid.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Perrault, Vernon, and Ruto. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use trimming at surface layers and overlapping between lattice and solid into the system of a warped cubic lattice structure for the advantageous purpose “to strengthen the connectivity of both elements, i.e., lattice and solid.” See Ruto column 6 lines 28-29. Furthermore, Ruto column 5 lines 45-55 teach:
At the interface between a lattice design space and a solid region, some void regions may appear in the final meshed lattice design, which can lead to a brittle or disconnected structure at the interface when manufactured using AM or 3D printing. Furthermore, very small cells with very small window sizes can form at the interface of the lattice (e.g., a randomly generated porous/lattice structure) with solid 134 and skin 136 regions, and also in some internal parts of the random lattice structures that have limited control over the distribution of the pore and window size of the lattice structure.
The trimmed regions being between the interface of the lattice design space and a solid region correspond with respective object surface layering. This reinforces that it is these surface areas which require subsequent overlap being created.
Claim 19 further recites “19. The method of claim 18, wherein the first region of the lattice structure includes a third layer of conformal lattice cells, wherein: the second layer is on top of a stack including the first layer and the third layer, or the second layer is underneath the stack including the first layer and the third layer.” Perrault column 24 lines 4-8 disclose;
As shown for example in FIGS. 14 and 15B, warped and unwarped cubic lattice cells 1302/1302 may be arranged in layers. The number of layers, the volume, and the cubic geometry of the lattice cells may be customized to the shape an individual's foot, or group of individual's feet.
The respective warped and unwarped layers correspond with first and second regions.
Perrault column 24 lines 12-16 disclose “For example, a forefoot portion of warped cubic lattice structure 1300 may include three layers and a midfoot portion and a heel portion of warped cubic lattice structure 1300 may include four layers of lattice cells.” Without loss of generality, the third layer of the four layers of lattice cells corresponds with a third layer of cells of a first region. See further Figs. 14 and 15B.
Perrault does not explicitly disclose which of the layers are unwarped; however, in analogous art of lattice structure interfacing, Ruto column 5 lines 43-45 disclose “When lattice structures are created by the program 116, lattice beams can be trimmed at the surface of the lattice design space.” Lattice beams being trimmed at the surfaces correspond with top and bottom layers. That is, surfaces occur at tops and bottoms. Accordingly, the second region corresponding with trimmed lattice cells is either on top or underneath other conformal lattice cell layers. Ruto column 6 line 33 teaches “create an overlap between lattice and solid.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Perrault, Vernon, and Ruto. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use trimming at surface layers and overlapping between lattice and solid into the system of a warped cubic lattice structure for the advantageous purpose “to strengthen the connectivity of both elements, i.e., lattice and solid.” See Ruto column 6 lines 28-29. Furthermore, Ruto column 5 lines 45-55 teach:
At the interface between a lattice design space and a solid region, some void regions may appear in the final meshed lattice design, which can lead to a brittle or disconnected structure at the interface when manufactured using AM or 3D printing. Furthermore, very small cells with very small window sizes can form at the interface of the lattice (e.g., a randomly generated porous/lattice structure) with solid 134 and skin 136 regions, and also in some internal parts of the random lattice structures that have limited control over the distribution of the pore and window size of the lattice structure.
The trimmed regions being between the interface of the lattice design space and a solid region correspond with respective object surface layering. This reinforces that it is these surface areas which require subsequent overlap being created.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200329815 A1 Schmid; Michael John
teaches
Footwear and Apparatus and Method for Making Same
US 10882255 B2 Kabaria; Hardik et al.
Mass customization in additive manufacturing
US 9902114 B2 Musuvathy; Suraj Ravi
Creating three dimensional lattice structures in computer-aided design models for additive manufacturing
Nguyen, D.S. & Vignat, F. “A Method to Generate Lattice Structure for Additive Manufacturing” IEEE Int’l Conf. on Industrial Engineering & Engineering Management (2016)
Technology background.
Page 3 teaches a trim volume lattice structure according to product space.
Feng, J., et al. “A review of the design methods of complex topology structures for 3D printing” Visual Computing for Industry Biomedicine & Art, 1:5 (2018)
Technology background.
Triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS), with Boolean operations.
Pages 11-12 “Lattice structure design methods” cite Nguyen and Chen and optimizing mechanical performance.
Nazmul Ahsan, A.M.M., & Khoda, B. “Characterizing Novel Honeycomb Infill Pattern for Additive Manufacturing” J. Manufacturing Science & Engineering, vol. 143 (Feb. 2021)
Lattice infill. Voxelized infill density.
Variational honeycomb.
Xiao, X. & Cirak, F. “Concurrent infill topology and shape optimisation of lattice-skin structures” arXiv:2105.04017v2 (May 2021)
Infill topology and shape optimization of lattice structures.
Section 4.1 teaches using free form deformation (FFD). Conclusion teaches “In shape optimisation, we use the free-form deformation technique because it allows us to seamlessly parameterise the shape of the entire lattice-skin structure.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 23 August 2026
Prosecution Insights