DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-10 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 11-20 are withdrawn from examination.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0154966 (A1) to Wadley (“Wadley”) in view of US 2016/0074937 (A1) to Nassar et al. (“Nassar”).
Regarding claim 1, Wadley discloses a process for forming a lattice structure for any type of component. Para. [0028], [0073]; FIG. 14B. The process includes steps of fabricating and joining a plurality of shapes via additive manufacturing (3D printing) (operating a printer to fill an internal volume of a three-dimensional object). Para. [0010], [0032], [0052], [0053], [0067], [0071].
The lattice structure can be made from octet cubic elements (octet-based infill toolpath needed to build the octet elements of the lattice). Para. [0053]-[0056]; FIGS. 5A-5C, 6-8, 9A-9B. In some embodiments, a horizontal plate may be placed over and joined with every bottom (top) forming a sandwiched structure (forming at least one floor layer within the internal volume; forming at least one roof layer within the internal volume). Para. [0045], [0052], [0054]; FIG. 2D and 4G. Because horizontal plates are at both top and bottom (para. [0041], [0045]) and the unit cells can be stacked (para. [0030], [0047]), the number of floor layers is the same as the number of roof layers. See, for example, FIG. 4A.
The lattice structure can be open or closed, can have a low relative density, and is not entirely solid (forming at least one sparse infill layer; plurality of sparse infill structure in the layer of the internal volume to be filled). Para. [0053], [0055]. The lattice has walls angled relative to one another and angled relative to the horizontal plate (overhanging and sloped edge angles defined relative to a horizontal plane). See, for example, FIG. 5C, 6, and 7.
Wadley does not explicitly disclose steps of determining a total number of layers required to fill an internal volume; using a maximum individual stepout distance for an octet-based infill toolpath to generate machine-ready instructions that operate the printer to form one or more pre-determined sloped edges; and using the sloped edge angle in a drop spacing calculation of overhanging octet paths. However, Wadley teaches using a software application configured to control any aspect of the 3D printing process for forming the lattice structure (requires machine-ready instructions to form one or more pre-determined sloped edges). Para. [0068]. Three-dimensional printing is inherently an additive process (additive manufacturing) in which an object is built layer by layer, thereby requiring the total number of layers to be determined for an object possessing a finite height. To form the overhanging structures, the software must decide how much material is consolidated beyond the edge of a previously deposited layer in order to produce a desired incline of the octet structure (using a maximum individual stepout distance to generate machine-ready instructions, the slope dependent on the edge angle for calculating overhang).
These printing strategies are expressly disclosed in Nassar. Nassar is directed to a method of manufacturing additive manufacturing an object comprising steep overhangs (sloped edges) and complex cellular structures. Abstract; para. [0003], [0055]; FIG. 12. The method of manufacturing relies on software and hardware to execute the build process, such as providing a geometric representation of the object (machine-ready instructions to operate the printer to form pre-determined sloped edges) (para. [0032]) and movement of the nozzle in the Z direction for each layer (determining total number of layers) (para. [0034], [0053]).
The overhang is an edge, area, or portion of a deposited structure that extends laterally from an existing structure. Para. [0035]. The overhang angle is determined by the position of a voxel (of material) relative to a previously deposited voxel, and the deposited voxel is used to generate overhangs, followed by deposition of continuous hatches to fill an interior (sloped edge angle used in drop spacing calculation of overhanging paths, maximum individual stepout distance needed to generate sloped edges). Para. [0030], [0035], [0048]; FIGS. 1 and 5.
The strategy can be used to manufacture overhangs, particularly steep overhangs, without the need for a specialized nozzle or tilt-table arrangement. Para. [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the printing strategy of Nassar into the printing method of Wadley because it simplifies the printing process and removes the need to use complicated devices to produce objects having complex shapes.
Regarding claim 2, Nassar discloses that the manufactured object can be built unsupported (without supports) even with steep overhangs. Abstract; para. [0003], [0035].
Regarding claims 3-5, Wadley shows various overhangs in the lattices, but is silent regarding specific angles of the sloped edges.
Nassar teaches that overhang angles can be less than 90°. Para. [0036]. This includes values of 75°, 60°, 55°, 45°, less than 35°, and less than 30° (para. [0011], [0013], [0015]), which overlaps the claimed ranges.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an overhang angle needed to build articles tailored to the specifications of a particular product.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Wadley shows embodiments where there is one bottom horizontal plate, one top horizontal plate, and lattice between (number of floor layers is the same as the number of roof layers, the number of floor layers and number of roof layers each being ‘n’). FIGS. 2D, 4A, and 4G. The lattice is separate from the horizontal plates (sparse infill layers not comprising the floor and roof, therefore being total number of layers minus 2n).
Regarding claim 10, Wadley discloses that the material of the structure is any suitable material, such as metal. Para. [0048], [0053], [0067], [0074].
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadley in view of Nassar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0073418 (A1) (also WO 2021/156292 (A1)) to Chhaya et al. (“Chhaya”).
US 2023/0073418 (A1) is a pre-grant publication of U.S. appl. ser. no. 17/759,748, which is a 371 national stage application of PCT/EP2021/052513, published by WIPO as WO 2021/156292 (A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Wadley teaches that the unit cell of the lattice can be varied on a small scale, e.g., less than one millimeter, or on a large scale, e.g., larger or comparable to one meter (para. [0049]), but is silent regarding the specific lateral dimensions (spacing) of each section of the infill structure. However, differences in size or proportion are not bases for patentable distinction. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Chhaya is directed to forming three-dimensional structures. Para. [0002]. The structures have internal structures that do not form an outermost boundary. The internal structure may contain strands being between 0.001 mm and 30 mm, with a separation distance between neighboring lines being between 0.001 mm and 30 cm, such as between 0.01 mm and 50 mm (para. [0040]), which overlaps the claimed ranges.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected internal dimensions needed to build the articles in Wadley so that they are tailored to performance requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Doehring (US 2019/0137972 (A1)) to reject the claims.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0266342 (A1) (equivalent to WO 2021/016666 (A1)) to King et al. discloses a method of determining a tool path for controlling a printing tool based on predefined infill strategy. Abstract. Volume partitioning may occur for complex structures involving overhangs. Para. [0110].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
September 02, 2026
Prosecution Insights