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 .
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 09/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-2 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Drawings. Applicant's remarks regarding the objection to the drawings filed 10/26/2023 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawings objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 07/03/2025 is withdrawn.
35 USC 102(a)(1). Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 12-13 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (WO-2016150247-A1) are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered. The rejection of amended claims 1 and 12-13 is provided below.
35 USC 103. Applicant’s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claims 2-11 and 14-20 do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claim 1 is not persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 is not considered to be deficient as argued above. The rejection of amended claims 2-11 and 14-20 is provided below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (Step 1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Step 2A - Prong One: This step asks whether the claim contains an abstract idea. The limitations of “a step the molding platform is detected reaching the bottom of the resin vat comprises: measuring a first measurement value for representing a force on the molding platform and determining the molding platform reaching the bottom of the resin vat when the first measurement value meets a first preset condition” and “a step of detecting that the molding platform has reached the bottom of the resin vat comprises: measuring a first measurement value for representing a force on the molding platform; wherein measuring the first measurement value comprises obtaining a no-load measurement value for representing the force on the molding platform when the molding platform is located outside the resin vat, measuring a current measurement value during movement of the molding platform towards the resin vat, and obtaining the first measurement value from a difference between the current measurement value and the no-load measurement value: and determining the molding platform reaching the bottom of the resin vat when the first measurement value meets a first preset condition comprising the first measurement value being greater than or equal to a first measurement threshold that is set such that, when the threshold is met, a force on the elastic structure is smaller than a force required to continue compression of the elastic structure” are limitations that under a broadest reasonable interpretation reads upon either a mental process or a mathematical concept as discussed below.
With regards to a mental process, applicant’s specification makes clear that the molding platform reaching the bottom of the resin vat may mean that the molding platform touches the resin vat (¶0037). Determining the molding platform reaching the bottom of the resin vat can practically be performed in the human mind.
With regards to a mathematical calculation, applicant’s specification discloses that the first measurement value may be measured by means of a force sensor (¶0035). Though not described in applicant’s specification, force sensors generally measures the force exerted on an object and functions by mathematical concepts on a transmitted and received signal to provide feedback to a controller (see computer program, ¶0008,0127). The mere calculation performed on such signal to measure a first measurement value for representing a force on the molding platform; to determine that the molding platform reaching the bottom of the resin vat when the first measurement value meets a first preset condition; to measure a first measurement value for representing a force on the molding platform, wherein measuring the first measurement value comprises obtaining a no-load measurement value for representing the force on the molding platform when the molding platform is located outside the resin vat, measuring a current measurement value during movement of the molding platform towards the resin vat, and obtaining the first measurement value from a difference between the current measurement value and the no-load measurement value; and to determine the molding platform reaching the bottom of the resin vat when the first measurement value meets a first preset condition comprising the first measurement value being greater than or equal to a first measurement threshold that is set such that, when the threshold is met, a force on the elastic structure is smaller than a force required to continue compression of the elastic structure is an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two: This step asks whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Here the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the claim adds no extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Once the step wherein the molding platform is detected reaching the bottom of the resin vat is preformed, there is no further step taken with the result of the mental process or mathematical calculation. The claim generally links the judicial exception to the technological environment of photocuring; however, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: This step asks whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Here the other elements of the claim include controlling the molding platform to move towards the resin vat and controlling the photocuring printer to carry out an exposure to print a first layer of a model to be printed. This step amounts to a well-understood, routine and conventional process that can be carried out in an automated or partially automated manner (¶0008) and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 3-20 the claims do not recite additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a step the molding platform is detected reaching the bottom of the resin vat” in line 13. Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether “a step the molding platform is detected reaching the bottom of the resin vat” in line 13 is the same as or different than “controlling the molding platform to move towards the resin vat by a first preset distance when the molding platform is detected reaching a bottom of the resin vat” previously recited in lines 5-6. Claims 2-20 which depend from claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a step of detecting that the molding platform has reached the bottom of the resin vat” in line 6-8. Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether ““a step of detecting that the molding platform has reached the bottom of the resin vat” in claim 2, line 6-8 is the same as or different than “controlling the molding platform to move towards the resin vat by a first preset distance when the molding platform is detected reaching a bottom of the resin vat” previously recited in claim 1, lines 5-6, “a step the molding platform is detected reaching the bottom of the resin vat” in claim 1, line 13. Claims 3-11 which depend from claim 2 are similarly rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743