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. Election Acknowledged Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged. Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-10 are presented for examination on the merits. Claim s 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Information Disclosure Statement One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/25/2023 . T he submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0137972 (A1) to Doehring et al. (“ Doehring ”) . Regarding claim 1, Doehring discloses methods and systems for generating a three-dimensional meta-structure model of a workpiece having mesh-based optimized structures that are suitable for production with a dditive m anufacturing (AM) systems (method of operating a printer to fill an internal volume of a three-dimensional object). Para. [0002], [0061]. The method includes steps of ( i ) creating a CAD model of a workpiece; (ii) defining a portion of the CAD model to replace with a three-dimensional meta-structure sub-model, (iii) converting the portion of the model to an initial finite element mesh structure, the finite element comprising interlinking linkages (e.g., edges) and joints (e.g., nodes) to form the three-dimensional structure; (iv) vary the cross-sectional areas of each of the linkages and joints; and (v) producing the workpiece (generating machine-ready instructions that operate the printer) . Fig. 1; para. [0053] -[ 0058]. In an example, the three-dimensional structure has a solid bottom (at least one floor layer), a solid bottom (at least one roof layer), and a mesh lattice in between (at least one sparse infill layer). Figs. 2A-C, 8A-8D , and 10. In the cited figures, there is one bottom and one top (number of floor layers is the same as the number of roof layers). In the same cited figures, the structure is tapered such that the mesh lattice is curved (one or more predetermined sloped edges of a plurality of space infill structure in the layer of internal volume to be filled). Although Doehring does not explicitly teach steps of determining a total number of layers required to fill the internal volume, this step is implicit in an additive manufacturing process because the objects are finite in dimension, and it would be necessary to know their height for instructing the printer to fabricate the object according to the CAD model submitted. Doehring does not expressly disclose a step of using a maximum individual stepout distance to generate machine-ready instructions. However, this parameter is required to build any shape because the system must decide the width of the footprint of the subsequent layer deposited prior to consolidating the build material. For instance, the shapes shown in Figures 2C, 3A-B, 4A-D, 9B, and 14 comprise sloping curves with overhangs, requiring some portion of a layer to exceed the width/length of a previous layer. For other object morphologies, a layer may not need to exceed the width/length of a previous layer . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided program instructions to the build apparatus to make this calculation in order to obtain the curved surfaces or non-curved shown in Doehring . Regarding claims 8 and 9, Doehring there is one bottom , one top , and lattice mesh in 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. 2A-C, 8A-8D, and 10. The lattice mesh is separate from the bottom and top (sparse infill layers not comprising the floor and roof, therefore being total number of layers minus 2n ). Regarding claim 10, Doehring discloses that the workpiece (object) is made of metal or alloy (layers required to fill the internal volume of the three-dimensional object comprises metal, metallic alloy, or a combination thereof). Para. [0022]. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doehring , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0074937 (A1) to Nassar et al. (“ Nassar ”) Regarding claim 2, Doehring is silent regarding whether supports are implemented in the build process. Nassar is directed to a method of manufacturing additive manufacturing an object. Abstract; para. [0003]. The manufactured object can be built unsupported (without supports) even with steep overhangs. Abstract; para. [0003] , [0035] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have built the structures of Doehring without supports because it would make the build process more efficient by reducing material and energy consumption as well as the need for post-processing to remove the supports. Regarding claims 3-5, Doehring shows various curves and overhangs in the objects modeled, 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°, and less than 35 degrees (para. [0013], [0015]), which overlaps the claimed range. 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 the medical implants in Doehring tailored to the specifications of a particular patient. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doehring , 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, Doehring discloses a lattice structure (infill structure) , but is silent regarding specific lateral dimensions of sections in the lattice . 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 range. 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 medical implants in Doehring so that they are tailored to required specifications (e.g., size of the particular patient , bone growth stimulation needs , etc.) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3587 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith D. Hendricks , can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 March 23, 2026