DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 07/30/2026. Claims 1-15, 21-25 are pending; claims 11-15 are withdrawn; and, claims 1-10 and 21-25 are examined below. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 05/26/2023.
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 1-10 and 21-25 are distinguished over the prior art
The examiner has been unable to find the claimed subject matter in the prior art. The examiner tried to piece together a rejection but was unable to find in the references an express teaching of using k-means to form the same local groups in which the per-cluster graphs are constructed.
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 1-10 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – All claims are method/process claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Claim 1 is found to recite the following abstract idea:
receiving in-situ spectral data measured from the additively manufactured object during an additive manufacturing process (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
constructing a graph data structure comprising a plurality of nodes using the in-situ spectral data, wherein constructing the graph comprises (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) pen and paper); and
partitioning the in-situ spectral data into a plurality of clusters using a k-means clusters algorithm (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III))
constructing a graph for each cluster in the plurality of clusters (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) pen and paper)
using the graph data structure and a trained graph-learning neural network, predicting a classification for each of the plurality of nodes based on at least the in- situ spectral data and edge-connections of the plurality of nodes, wherein classes of the classification comprise one or more of: a solid node classification or a void node classification; predicting a defect region based on at least the classifications of the plurality of nodes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); using data to make a prediction is a common fundamental economic practice/principle, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)); and
outputting the predicted defect region (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group)
When viewed alone and in combination, these limitations are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Claim 1 is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “using the graph data structure and a trained graph-learning neural network.” See MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it” rationale, where this is not found to be sufficient to make eligible. The claim 1 also recites outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g) where outputting known data is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional elements are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – Claim 1 is not found to include significantly more. The additional element analysis of Step 2A, Prong 2 is equally applied here. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Claim 1 has limitations relating to receiving and transmitting data, which has been found to be WURC by the courts: 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these limitations are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – Claim 2 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). Claim 3 recites abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Claim 4 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Claim 5 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Claim 6 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Claim 7 recites more abstract idea performed using WURC activity iterative calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Claims 8-10 are more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Claim 21-25 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (II)(C).
Response to Arguments
The examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments. The examiner agrees that the prior art does not teach the recited limitations of the claims, as indicated above.
As for the 101 rejection, the examiner has reviewed the claims in-depth and does not find the claims to be eligible. The examiner has updated the rejection above to satisfies all of the amendments, which were argued. Accordingly, the examiner refers to the new rejection above that covers the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights