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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach “determining components to be co-printed in a single rendering for inclusion in the 3-D print model,” as recited in claim 1. As a first point, the term “rendering” has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below as being indefinite. Secondly, the phrase “to be” is intended use language and therefore does not impart patentable weight to the limitation. That being said, Examiner notes that the Czinger reference is considered to teach “determining components to be co-printed in a single rendering for inclusion in the 3-D print model” (e.g., Czinger [0062], [0178]: “the sensors may be integrated into the joint via a 3-D printing process”, [0143], [0186]-[0187]).
Applicant also argues that the prior art of record does not teach “replacing the portion with the COTS part model to determine the MCS model without 3-D printing the portion as a custom part,” as recited in claim 19. However, Examiner notes that the Czinger reference is considered to teach “replacing the portion with the COTS part model to determine the MCS model without 3-D printing the portion as a custom part” (e.g., Czinger Claim 12: “wherein the updated design model includes one or more COTS parts from the database, such that printing instructions exclude instructions for printing the one or more COTS parts”).
Double Patenting
A non-statutory double patenting rejection was present in the Non-Final Office Action dated 07/01/2025. Applicant has indicated a terminal disclaimer will be filed upon the indication of allowable subject matter in the pending claims.
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 1-18 and 36 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 meaning of the term “rendering” recited in claim 1 is unclear. In the computer and 3D modeling arts, “rendering” is defined as the creation of an image containing geometric models, using color and shading to give the image a realistic look. However, Applicant appears to be using the term in a different context. Clarification is required.
Claims 2-18 and 36 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the same deficiencies.
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 1-2, 13-17 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grifith et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0297059 A1) in view of Czinger et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0343984 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Grifith et al. teaches a method for developing a multi-component structure (MCS), comprising: obtaining a 3-D print model of an object, (Paragraph [0037] and Fig. 4, model 410)
determining components to be co-printed in a single rendering (The term “rendering” is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Further, the “to be” language is intended use and thus does not carry patentable weight) for inclusion in the 3-D print model; determining a first portion of the 3-D print model to contain the co-printed components such that the load case criteria remain satisfied; (Paragraph [0037] and Fig. 4, split the model into pieces which are individually printable)
augmenting the first portion with the co-printed components; (Paragraph [0039] and Fig. 4, system can place connector components on the pieces so that the printed pieces can be connected together to form the original object)
Grifith et al. does not teach wherein the 3-D print model is based on load case criteria; determining components to be co-printed in a single rendering for inclusion in the 3-D print model; and evaluating the first portion of the 3-D print model against an objective function, and wherein the objective function comprises at least evaluating structural performance or a number of joints.
However, Czinger et al. teaches wherein the 3-D print model is based on load case criteria; determining components to be co-printed in a single rendering for inclusion in the 3-D print model (Czinger [0062], [0178]: “the sensors may be integrated into the joint via a 3-D printing process”, [0143], [0186]-[0187]); and evaluating the first portion of the 3-D print model against an objective function, (Paragraph [0109], model must be assessed to determine whether the model meets the requirements)
and wherein the objective function comprises at least evaluating structural performance or a number of joints. (Paragraph [0105], performance characteristics may include load carrying capability)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grifith et al.'s splitting of models with Czinger et al.'s determining whether models meet requirements in order to ensure the split models meet requirements. One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply a known technique (determining whether models meet requirements) to a known device (splitting models) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (ensure the split models meet requirements).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the 3-D print model includes a node model (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0168], nodes), and wherein the co-printed components are produced as a single 3-D printed node (Czinger [0062], [0178]: “the sensors may be integrated into the joint via a 3-D printing process”, [0143], [0186]-[0187]).
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the 3-D print model includes determining the 3-D print model based on the load case criteria. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0105], performance characteristics may include load carrying capability)
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 13, wherein determining the 3-D print model is further based on at least a design space, a non-design space including a hard point or connection, a size, shape, density, material and weight requirement, an ecological and environmental consideration, a COTS count requirement, and a parts, assembly, and lifecycle cost. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0063], size, weight, stiffness, shape)
Regarding Claim 15:
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 13, wherein determining the 3-D print model includes performing topology optimization to identify a load path based on the load case criteria. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0062], topology optimization)
Regarding Claim 16:
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 15, wherein determining the 3-0 print model is further based on a non-design space, the non-design space including a hard point or a connection. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0191], hard point)
Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 13, wherein determining the 3-D print model includes performing mesh segmentation to generate a mesh representation of the object based at least in part on the load case criteria, the generated mesh representation including a surface mesh. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0105], performance characteristics may include load carrying capability)
Regarding Claim 36:
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. additionally teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the objective function comprises a plurality of objective functions, and wherein evaluating the first portion of the 3-D print model against an objective function includes performing multi-objective analysis based on the plurality of objective functions. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0109], model must be assessed to determine whether the model meets the requirements)
Claims 3-12 and 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grifith et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0297059 A1) and Czinger et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0343984 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 13-17 and 36 above, and further in view of Ur (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0066198 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Grifith et al. and Czinger et al. does not teach determining a second portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced with a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) part model, such that the load case criteria remain satisfied; and replacing the second portion with the COTS part model without 3-D printing the second portion as a custom part, wherein the co-printed components are configured to connect with the COTS part model.
However, Ur teaches determining a second portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced with a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) part model, such that the load case criteria remain satisfied; and replacing the second portion with the COTS part model (Paragraph [0072]- [0073], base object can be a purchased or obtained part and the processor analyzes the base object and finished product to determine how material can be added to base object to create the finished product, Czinger Claim 12: “wherein the updated design model includes one or more COTS parts from the database”) without 3-D printing the second portion as a custom part (Czinger Claim 12: “such that printing instructions exclude instructions for printing the one or more COTS parts”), wherein the co-printed components are configured to connect with the COTS part model (e.g., Czinger [0062], [0178], [0143], [0186]-[0187], [0194]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Grifith et al. and Czinger et al.'s splitting 3d models and ensuring they meet requirements with Ur's method of integrating a base object into a finished product in order to integrate a base object into the 3d model. One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to apply a known technique (integrating a base object) to a known device (splitting 3d models and ensuring they meet requirements) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (integrating a base object into the 3d model and ensuring it meets requirements).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the COTS part model includes at least a plate, a tube, a pipe, a fastener, or an extrusion. (Ur Paragraph [0066], base object may be a template of a screwdriver)
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the MCS includes a plurality of different materials. (Grifith et al. Paragraph [0047], parts composed of multiple materials)
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the objective function comprises a plurality of objective functions, wherein replacing the second portion with the COTS part model includes performing an objective analysis based on the plurality of objective functions, and wherein the plurality of objective functions comprise one or more of maximizing the structural performance, minimizing a number of 3D printed parts, and minimizing the number of the joints. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0109], model must be assessed to determine whether the model meets the requirements and Czinger et al. Paragraph [0105], performance characteristics may include load carrying capability)
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 3, wherein replacing the second portion with the COTS part model includes determining a plurality of different potential replacements, each potential replacement including a potential portion of the 3-D print model and a potential COTS part model, wherein at least the potential portion or the potential COTS part model is different with different potential replacements. (Ur Paragraph [0072]- [0073], base object can be a purchased or obtained part and the processor analyzes the base object and finished product to determine how material can be added to base object to create the finished product)
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 7, wherein replacing the second portion with the COTS part model includes comparing the potential replacements based on one or more input criteria. (Ur Paragraph [0072]- [0073], base object can be a purchased or obtained part and the processor analyzes the base object and finished product to determine how material can be added to base object to create the finished product)
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 8, wherein comparing the potential replacements includes determining where each potential replacement lies along a pareto frontier. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0080], pareto optimal solutions can be found)
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 8, wherein comparing the potential replacements includes performing size optimization on the potential COTS part model of one of the potential replacements or performing topology optimization on the potential portion of the 3-D printed part of one of the potential replacements. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0062], topology optimization)
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 3, wherein determining the second portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced with the COTS part model includes evaluating a plurality of evaluation metrics against a plurality of design requirements. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0109], model must be assessed to determine whether the model meets the requirements)
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the evaluation metrics include at least a structural performance factor, a 3-D print cost, a COTS part cost, an assembly cost, or a lifecycle cost. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0105], performance characteristics may include load carrying capability)
Regarding Claim 18:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising: determining a second portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced with a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) part model, such that the load case criteria remain satisfied; and replacing the second portion with the COTS part model, (Ur Paragraph [0072]- [0073], base object can be a purchased or obtained part and the processor analyzes the base object and finished product to determine how material can be added to base object to create the finished product)
wherein determining the second portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced by the COTS part model includes analyzing the mesh representation to match the COTS part model with a geometry of a portion of the mesh representation. (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0105], performance characteristics may include load carrying capability)
Regarding Claim 19:
The combination of Grifith et al., Czinger et al. and Ur additionally teaches a method for determining a multi-component structure (MCS) model, comprising: obtaining a 3-D print model of an object, (Grifith et al. Paragraph [0037] and Fig. 4, model 410)
wherein the 3-D print model is based on load case criteria; (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0109], model must be assessed to determine whether the model meets the requirements)
determining a portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced with a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) part model, such that the load case criteria remain satisfied; (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0109], model must be assessed to determine whether the model meets the requirements)
and replacing the portion with the COTS part model to determine the MCS model, (Ur Paragraph [0072]- [0073], base object can be a purchased or obtained part and the processor analyzes the base object and finished product to determine how material can be added to base object to create the finished product, Czinger Claim 12: “wherein the updated design model includes one or more COTS parts from the database”) without 3-D printing the portion as a custom part (Czinger Claim 12: “such that printing instructions exclude instructions for printing the one or more COTS parts”),
wherein replacing the portion with the COTS part model includes performing an objective analysis based on an objective function, and wherein the objective function comprise at least evaluating structural performance or a number of joints (Czinger et al. Paragraph [0109], model must be assessed to determine whether the model meets the requirements and Czinger et al. Paragraph [0105], performance characteristics may include load carrying capability).
Regarding Claims 20-35:
Claims 20-35 recite limitations similar to those of claims 2, 4-5 and 7-18 and are thus rejected under the same rational as above.
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 RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
07/02/26
Prosecution Insights