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 .
Claims 1-36 are pending.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “requirement interface unit”, “optimization unit”, “data generation unit” in claims 20-21 and 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising a combination of “providing…”, “defining …”, “performing…” and “providing…” is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “defining an area comprising the manufactured product, wherein the manufactured product comprises at least one segment”, “performing an optimization process for at least one segment of the manufactured product in the defined area to select at least one optimum parameter set, which comprises a defined group of process parameter values, from a number of candidate parameter sets and to determine an optimized segment scanning direction distribution using a defined target function and the requirement data”. These limitations - recite a mental process – that is a concept which may be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) These claims may also be a recitation of a mathematical concept, i.e. a mathematical calculation. Notwithstanding the recitation of generic computer components, the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “providing requirement data of the manufactured product, which comprises at least geometric data of the manufactured product”; “providing the optimum parameter set and the optimized segment scanning direction distribution as optimized process variable values”.
Providing data and providing optimum parameter set to generate optimization process recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation providing data, providing the optimum parameter set and the optimized segment scanning direction distribution as optimized process variable values at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “generating optimized process variable values for an additive manufacturing process of a manufactured product” no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Providing data by the processor as discuss above, represent mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. The “additive manufacturing process” limitation, as discussed above, represents mere data output and is a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see USPGPUB 2020/0250363) and see 2106.05.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 20 has similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Dependent claims did not recite any additional elements, so its rejected under 101.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woytowitz et al USPGPUB 20200156323 A1 a methods for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, comprising processing a computer model of the 3D object to generate a strength or stress profile of the computer model. Next at least (i) the strength or stress profile from processing the computer model and (ii) a topology of the 3D object may be used to generate a tool path for printing the 3D object. Printing of the 3D object may be simulated using the tool path to yield a simulated 3D object. The simulated 3D object may be analyzed to determine whether the simulated 3D object meets a threshold. If the simulated 3D object meets the threshold, printing instructions comprising the tool path may be generated for use by a 3D printer to print the 3D object.
Sterenthal et al. USPGPUB 20180056594 A1 teaches a system is configured to form a three dimensional (3D) object having multiple zones within the three dimensional object. The zones differ from each other according to system operational parameters. The system is operable to perform a method including: (1) receiving a solid model file, (2) generating a shell of the 3D object based on the file, (3) dividing the shell into zones, (4) defining or selecting parameters for forming the zones, (5) forming layer data defining layers of the 3D object, and creating a tool path from the layer data including merging layer data for the zones.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights