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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 49-55, in the reply filed on October 28, 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the 3D geometry." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the whole." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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), 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 (¶¶ 43-45), and a printer assembly coupled to the processor for printing the 3D geometry of at least the portion of the slice of the part (¶¶ 161-162; fig. 19).
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), the motor configured to report a physical state including a position of the build plate (position sensor 128 measured 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). Batchelder discloses 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 sliced 3D model geometry to determine which slice image to render and project to improve dimensional accuracy during printing.
Claim 50: Courter discloses the geometric primitives includes 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights