DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/12/25 and 4/30/24 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Yes, the claim 1 is directed to a system (including a processor, memory…); claim 8 is to a method (A processor is performing a control method); claim 15 is to a computer program product comprising memories. which are a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. The limitations “obtain a sliced three-dimensional model of the part for
additive manufacturing, wherein the sliced three-dimensional model comprises a plurality of layers stacked in a build direction extending from a virtual build plate and each layer of the plurality of layers comprises a predefined height; generate, for each neighboring pair of layers in the plurality of layers, a face count difference, wherein
the face count difference is a difference between a first face count of a first layer and a second face count of a previous layer, and the previous layer is closer to the virtual build plate than the first layer; generate, for each of the neighboring pair of layers, a
surface area difference, wherein the surface area difference is a difference between a first surface area of the first layer and a surface area of the previous layer; predict, for each of the neighboring pair of layers, that the first layer from each of the neighboring pair of layers comprises a presence of a build line based on a determination that the face count difference is less than zero and the surface area difference is greater than zero to form a list of predicted build line layers comprising one or more layers predicted to comprise the presence of the build line”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim further recites “store, in the one or more memories, the list of predicted build line layers comprising one or more layers predicted to comprise the presence of the build line; and adjust at least one dimension of the part for additive
manufacturing corresponding to a layer in the list of predicted build line layers.” are amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, making judgment and adjusting data until the desire expectation of outcome is not satisfied (MPEP 2106.05 (g)): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories," amount to insignificant extra‐solution activities. The system, memory, processor, UI component, generative Al component, are generic computer components used as a tool. They provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20:
They depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, therefore recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of claims 1, 8 and 15. The claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recited other new limitations but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence are mental processes based abstract idea. Please note that a narrower abstract idea is still an abstract idea as in this case since the limitations of the claims 2-7 and 9-14 and 16-20 are more narrowing the abstract idea of the claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, the claims 2-7 and 9-14 and 16-20 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. Furthermore, the claims 2-7 and 9-14 and 16-20 do not contain additional limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. The claims 2-7 and 9-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible.
5. Examiner's note: To qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the particular machine to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in claims 1 and 8 and 19, the prior art of records do not teach generate, for each neighboring pair of layers in the plurality of layers, a face count difference, wherein
the face count difference is a difference between a first face count of a first layer and a second face count of a previous layer, and the previous layer is closer to the virtual build plate than the first layer; generate, for each of the neighboring pair of layers, a
surface area difference, wherein the surface area difference is a difference between a first surface area of the first layer and a surface area of the previous layer;
predict, for each of the neighboring pair of layers, that the first layer from each of the neighboring pair of layers comprises a presence of a build line based on a determination that the face count difference is less than zero and the surface area difference is greater than zero to form a list of predicted build line layers comprising one or more layers predicted to comprise the presence of the build line; adjust at least one dimension of the part for additive manufacturing corresponding to a layer in the list of
predicted build line layers.
The office would like to preface this section with the following claims discussed have outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and claim objection issues that must be resolved before the claims are considered allowable.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Babu et al., US publication no. 2021/0146623 A1, teaches a computer implemented method of generating tool path data to be followed by an additive manufacturing apparatus when manufacturing a physical object, the method comprising:
providing object design data in which at least a part of the physical object is represented by a line or surface; slicing a section of the line or surface using an intermediate slicing layer that is provided between first and second physical build layers of the additive manufacturing apparatus, wherein slicing the section of the line or surface generates an intermediate layer point or line at an intersection of the section of the line or surface and the intermediate slicing layer, wherein the intermediate layer point or line is located between the first and second physical build layers; projecting the intermediate layer point or line to a projected build layer point or line that lies within a physical build layer of the additive manufacturing apparatus; and using the projected build layer point or line to provide tool path data for that physical build layer.
Hayes et al., US publication no. 2017/0136703 A1, teaches a computer implemented method comprising: receiving geometry information associated with tool paths that a dispensing head follows to deposit roads of material for successively building object layers of a 3D object during an additive manufacturing process;
generating simulated object layers of a simulated 3D object from said tool paths, wherein said simulated object layers represent an interior geometry of each one
of said object layers; determining a contact surface area between adjacent ones
of said simulated object layers; and determining a predicted mechanical property of said 3D object from said contact surface area and a material property of said material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)?
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights