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 .
The amendment filed June 12, 2026 has been entered.
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 49-55 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “complex geometry” in claims 49 and 53 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of “complex geometry” is unclear when the claims are read in light of the specification. Paragraph 40 of the instant specification defines “complex geometry” as “geometry that is physically printed, but not explicitly created or generated as digital representations.” Paragraph 41 states that the “complexity” of the geometry refers to the size, density and/or degree of curvature of the features of the object to be printed. Thus, the disclosure does not make clear whether satisfaction of paragraph 40 establishes that a geometry is “complex,” or whether the geometry must also satisfy a size, density and/or curvature requirement disclosed in paragraph 41. These two definitions produce different scopes. Under the first, a physically printed simple shape generated without an explicit digital representation satisfies the limitation. Under the second, that same shape may fall outside the claim because it does not exceed a complexity threshold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 49-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courter (US 2020/0035015) in view of Batchelder (US 2017/0129169).
Claim 49: Courter discloses a 3D printing system configured to print a part with complex geometry (abstract). The system includes a motor operatively coupled to a linear actuator for moving a build plate (¶ 167), a processor coupled to the motor (¶¶ 36-37, 167), the processor configured to receive one or more geometric primitives being respective mathematical representations of respective elements of the part with the complex geometry (¶ 43), input the one or more geometric primitives into one or more functions to evaluate points on an image plane and render an image of at least a portion of a slice of the part (¶¶ 43-52), and a printer assembly coupled to the processor for printing the 3D geometry of at least the portion of the slice of the part (¶¶ 161-167; figs. 19-20).
Courter is silent as to the motor being configured to report a physical state of the motor in real time during a print process, the physical state including one or more of rotation, torque, voltage of the motor and position of the build plate as controlled by the motor, and receiving the physical state from the motor, the physical state forming part of a hardware state of the system. However, Batchelder discloses a 3D printing system configured to print a part with complex geometry including a motor (30) operatively coupled to a linear actuator (threaded rod 24) for moving a build plate (38), with a position-feedback arrangement reporting a position of the build plate (position sensor 128 measures the position of the support plate 34 or the build platen 38 and sends a signal to controller 7; ¶ 58), and controller 7 receives the position signal from position sensor 128 (this sensed position of the build platen being a hardware state of the system that is received by the processor). The motor and associated position-feedback arrangement are applied as the claimed motor-reporting arrangement. Batchelder discloses control of the projected optical stimulation based on the hardware state (position of the build plate as sensed in real time) and geometric data (sliced 3D model) are jointly input into the controller functions that determine and render the slice image to be projected. As taught by Batchelder, the actual build platen velocity may deviate from the predetermined velocity, and position sensor 128 provides the real-time feedback needed to correct this deviation and synchronize the projected slice image to the true build platen height (¶ 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated Batchelder’s motor/linear actuator system for moving a build platen in Courter’s GPU-based 3D printing system, in which a position sensor that reports the build platen’s position in real time during printing, and a controller that uses this sensed build platen height together with the geometric primitives to determine which slice image to render for printing to improve dimensional accuracy and layer registration during printing. In the combination, the measured height establishes the slice coordinate input to Courter’s functions for evaluating points on the image plane and rendering the slice image. The generated slice thereby corresponds to the actual build position.
Claim 50: Courter discloses the geometric primitives include triangles (¶ 43).
Claim 51: Courter discloses a CPU (86) that receives the geometric primitives and a GPU (87) coupled to the CPU that evaluates the functions using the primitives to generate an appropriate slice representation of the geometry of the part (¶ 38).
Claim 52: Courter discloses the geometric primitives including a collection of triangles and a function computes a winding number of a point with respect to the geometry of the part and generates a new representation (¶ 43).
Claim 53: Courter discloses the function computes a signed distance field representation of the complex geometry to be printed directly (¶ 110).
Claim 54: Courter discloses the function create a lattice (¶ 128).
Claim 55: Courter discloses the processor is configured to create an additional function wherein a slice of the part is evaluated with the additional function (¶ 102; fig. 12; multiple selection rules for multiple parts are blended or merged).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the term “complex geometry” would be understood by one skillin the art in view of the disclosure. However, as discussed in the rejection above, the scope of “complex geometry” is unclear when the claims are read in light of the specification. Paragraph 40 of the instant specification defines “complex geometry” as “geometry that is physically printed, but not explicitly created or generated as digital representations.” Paragraph 41 states that the “complexity” of the geometry refers to the size, density and/or degree of curvature of the features of the object to be printed. Thus, the disclosure does not make clear whether satisfaction of paragraph 40 alone establishes that a geometry is “complex,” or whether the geometry must also satisfy a size, density and/or curvature requirement disclosed in paragraph 41. These two definitions produce different scopes. Under the first, a physically printed simple shape generated without an explicit digital representation satisfies the limitation. Under the second, that same shape may fall outside the claim because it does not exceed an applicable complexity threshold.
Applicant further argues that Courter does not disclose receiving a physical state from a motor and therefore cannot disclose using both the hardware state and geometric primitives in the recited functions. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Courter is not relied upon alone for those limitations. The rejection is based on Courter in view of Batchelder. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Batchelder uses the measured position of the support plate or build platen only for the purpose of adjusting the movement of the support plate or build platen itself. This argument has been considered but is also not persuasive. Batchelder’s disclosure as a whole additionally links the sensed position to control of the optical stimulation. Claim 1 and paragraph 5 describe projection based on the sliced model and sensed platen height; paragraph 9 and claim 20 describe monitoring platen height and controlling emission of the optical stimulation; and paragraphs 59 and 78 describe projection of the pattern corresponding to the next layer as the platen advances by the layer distance. These portions of the reference provide further support for the previously discussed measured-height synchronization teaching.
In addition to the height-based synchronization, paragraph 80 of Batchelder describes the use of sensed platen or output shaft angle with the sliced model to orient the projected pattern and register the new layer with the previously printed layer. The rotation embodiment confirms that Batchelder uses measured hardware state in determining image orientation. Rotation motor 322 is distinct from lift motors 30. The combination uses Batchelder’s measured build-platen height to establish the slice coordinate at which Courter’s functions evaluate the geometric primitives. The hardware state and primitives thus participate in determining the slice image.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
