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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. A response on 09/29/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-9. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given on action dated 08/12/2026, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-9 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.
Regarding claims 1-9, the terms “optimize” “non-normal” are vague and a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The terms “optimize” “non-normal” are 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 appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “optimize” “non-normal” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “optimize” “non-normal” occurs.
Note: In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a system for measuring surface heights during three-dimensional fabrication, comprising: a point z-height sensor configured to measure a position of a tool fabrication spot on a surface being printed appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of an attachment mechanism for attaching the point z-height sensor to a tool assembly such that movement of the point z-height sensor remains in sync with a toolpath comprising movement of the tool assembly are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of a control system configured to optimize a scan path of the tool based on measured height data and movement of the tool assembly appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible.
Claim 2 related to the tool is a printhead, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible.
Claim 3 related to the point z-height sensor is a laser triangulation sensor, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 3 not eligible.
Claim 4 related to the laser triangulation sensor is configured at a non-normal incidence angle, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4 not eligible.
Claim 5 related to a control loop for compensating for any z-height errors during a fabrication process based on the measured height data, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5 not eligible.
Claim 6 related to the attachment mechanism is configured to maintain an offset distance between the tool fabrication spot and a z-height sensor measurement spot, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 6 not eligible.
Claim 7 related to comprising an additional point z-height sensor, wherein the point z-height sensor and the additional point z-height sensor are arranged in a grid pattern perpendicular to the toolpath for increasing X-Y resolution, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 7 not eligible.
Claim 8 related to a dynamic adjustment mechanism for changing a position of the z-height sensor measurement spot relative to the tool fabrication spot, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 8 not eligible.
Claim 9 related to a low-pass filter for smoothing out any noise in the measured height data, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 9 not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Matusik et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 20180169953 A1, Date Published: 2018-06-21).
Regarding claim 1:
Matusik described a system for measuring surface heights during three-dimensional fabrication (abstract, fig. 1), comprising:
a point z-height sensor configured to measure a position of a tool fabrication spot on a surface being printed (fig. 1, z direction);
an attachment mechanism for attaching the point z-height sensor to a tool assembly such that movement of the point z-height sensor remains in sync with a toolpath comprising movement of the tool assembly (fig. 1, 112, 0034, may move in three axes and the printhead remains fixed or also may move); and
a control system configured to optimize a scan path of the tool based on measured height data and movement of the tool assembly (0060, optimized operation to save scanning time, the scanning system captures the information corresponding to the area/volume spanned by the last printed layers).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Matusik further described wherein the tool is a printhead (0034, printhead 110).
Regarding claim 5, Matusik further described a control loop for compensating for any z-height errors during a fabrication process based on the measured height data (fig. 4, fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Matusik further described wherein the attachment mechanism is configured to maintain an offset distance between the tool fabrication spot and a z-height sensor measurement spot (0010, The layers of the second set of layers are determined to be offset from the first surface, fig. 5-6)
Regarding claim 7, Matusik further described an additional point z-height sensor, wherein the point z-height sensor and the additional point z-height sensor are arranged in a grid pattern perpendicular to the toolpath for increasing X-Y resolution (fig. 2, 110 go up down, 0062, increase as more layers are deposited, fig. 5-6, 0054, increase in accuracy x-y smaller, increase resolution).
Regarding claim 8, Matusik further described a dynamic adjustment mechanism for changing a position of the z-height sensor measurement spot relative to the tool fabrication spot (0016, repeating (e.g., iterating) one or more times, fig. 5-6).
.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusik et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 20180169953 A1, Date Published: 2018-06-21) in view of RANKY RICHARD, WO 2013049188 A1, Date Published: 2013-04-04, CPC G01B 7/18.
Regarding claim 3, Matusik further described the point z-height triangulation (fig. 5-6).
Matusik does not described laser sensor.
RANKY RICHARD a laser sensor (0072, 3D laser-based scanners), for the advantage of very accurate over a wide measurement volume (0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Matusik to have laser sensor taught by RANKY RICHARD for the advantage of very accurate over a wide measurement volume.
Regarding claim 4, Matusik further described wherein the triangulation sensor is configured at a non-normal incidence angle (0211, angle between layers was below the default threshold).
Matusik does not described laser sensor.
RANKY RICHARD a laser sensor (0072, 3D laser-based scanners), for the advantage of very accurate over a wide measurement volume (0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Matusik to have laser sensor taught by RANKY RICHARD for the advantage of very accurate over a wide measurement volume.
Regarding claim 9, Matusik further described for smoothing out any noise in the measured height data (fig. 5-6, 0053, smooth outer surface of the object).
Matusik further not described a low-pass filter.
RANKY RICHARD a low pass filter (0216, ow-pass filter), for the advantage of very accurate over a wide measurement volume (0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Matusik to have a low pass filter taught by RANKY RICHARD for the advantage of very accurate over a wide measurement volume.
Contact information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
October 08, 2026
Prosecution Insights