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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 10/11/24, wherein:
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 10, 15 as written recite “access object data for the controlled object from the database; determine confidentiality preserving descriptors of the three- dimensional object; generate and evaluate processes according to the object data for the controlled object based on the confidentiality preserving descriptors of the three- dimensional object and the controlled object” are the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (e.g., including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). For example, but for the “a processor” language, the context of the recited limitations above encompasses that a person can access or retrieve the folder that containing object data from shelve, the person can mentally determine whether the object request for 3D printing is the object that is restricted based on comparing the data record of the object. The person then evaluates to determine the level or type of restricted or level of confident on the object that is requested for 3D printing if the object is determined to be confidential or restricted. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under the 2A prong 1 analysist.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to the 2A prong 2 analysist. In particular, the claim using a processor to perform the abstract idea. This step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic processor ) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Further, storing object data in a database, receive a request to print 3D object are not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely data gathering and outputting the data. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to the 2B analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform all of the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or other machinery .
In addition, storing object data in a database, receive a request to print 3D object are not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely storing data in a memory and outputting the data which are considered as well understood routine conventional as it has been held by the court. Particularly in receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Noting that claim to a system and non-transitory computer are held ineligible for the same reason, e.g., the generically-recited computers add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Therefore, the independents 1, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 10 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s)1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BALINSKY ET AL (WO 2021/247357 A1). Herein after BALINSKY.
As for claim 1, BALINSKY discloses a computing system for a three-dimensional printing apparatus {see at least abstract, par. 0016}, the computing system comprising: a database that stores object data for a controlled object {see at least figure 4, items 414, 416, pars. 0025-0026, 0052-0053 e.g. a database may store data describing portions of objects that are identified as objects of interest; par. 0052 e.g. a database 414 which may be to store data describing objects of interest objects in examples where a portion of the object is compared to stored data to determine if the portion is identified as an object of interest (e.g. a target object, a restricted object etc.)},
the object data comprising: confidentiality preserving descriptors associated to the controlled object; {see at least pars. 0017, 0018, 0049, 0025, 0053 which discloses the database stores the restricted object, right-restricted database}, and a specification of processes for identifying the controlled object, the specification comprising a hierarchical arrangement of processes into layers, wherein processes in a given layer have a higher accuracy for identifying the controlled object than processes in a preceding layer par. 0018 discloses {see at least pars. 0017, 0018, 0049, 0025, par. 0053-0054 which discloses class or type or category of the object; par. 0055 discloses categorize a portion of the object. In other words, the instructions may be to cause the processor to determine whether a portion of the object belongs to a category, type, or class etc. of interest, to determine whether the portion is an object of interest; par. 0028 and figure 1 discloses e.g. determining the type and/or category of the portion of the object, and/or determining whether the portion of the object belongs to a type and/or category of interest, and block 106 may comprise determining whether a policy-based action is associated with the object type and/or category……the object is generated according to the executed action and according to the policy}; and
a processor {see at least figure 1, par. 0024} to:
receive a request to print a three-dimensional object on the three- dimensional printing apparatus {see at least pars. 0023-0024 e.g. “generate by a processor, on object model data that describes an object…..receiving the object model data…”};
access object data for the controlled object from the database; determine confidentiality preserving descriptors of the three- dimensional object {see at least figure 1, par. 0025 which discloses e.g. a database may store data describing portions of objects that are identified as objects of interest and it is determined, e.g. at block 104, whether part of the object model data describes such an object…..determining using an artificial neural network or other methods that the object is identified as an object of interest. Block 104 may comprise determining whether part or whole of the object model data describes (a portion of) an object that is identified as an object of interest. Block 104 may therefore comprise determining whether the object described by the object model data is an object of interest} and
evaluate processes according to the object data for the controlled object based on the confidentiality preserving descriptors of the three- dimensional object and the controlled object {see at least figure 1, pars. 0025-0026 e.g. determining, e.g. by a processor, whether there exists a policy-based action associated with the object}.
As for claim 2, BALINSKY discloses wherein, to evaluate processes according to the object data, the processor is to: evaluate layers of the hierarchy of processes in sequence, based on an output of the evaluation of the preceding layer of processes in the hierarchy {see at least par. 0020}.
As for claim 3, BALINSKY discloses wherein the processor is to: determine that the three-dimensional object is distinct from the controlled object when the evaluation of processes in a layer of the hierarchy is indicative of a dissimilarity between the three-dimensional object and the controlled object {see at least par. 0025}.
As for claim 4, BALINSKY discloses wherein the processor is to print the three-dimensional object in response to determining that the three-dimensional object is distinct from the controlled object {see at least par. 0025}.
As for claim 5, BALINSKY discloses wherein processes in a first layer have a lower computational complexity than processes in a second layer, subsequent to the first layer {see at least pars. 0019-0021, 0054-0055}.
As for claim 6, BALINSKY discloses wherein the processor is to: determine that the three-dimensional object is the same as the controlled object when evaluation of processes in all layers of the hierarchy are indicative of a similarity between the three-dimensional object and the controlled object {see at least pars. 0019-0021, 0054-0055}.
As for claim 7, BALINSKY discloses wherein the processor is to execute a policy in response to determining that the three-dimensional object is the same as the controlled object {see at least figure 1, pars. 0016-0018}.
As for claim 8, BALINSKY discloses the processor is to reconfigure the specification of process for identifying the controlled object {see at least pars. 0030-0031.
As for claims 9, BALINSKY discloses wherein the processor is to reconfigure the specification of processes by modifying an order in which processes are evaluated, assigning and/or modifying weights indicative of a relative importance of the processes and/or omitting a process from the specification {see at least pars. 0030-0031}.
As for claims 10, 12-15, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above. They are therefore considered rejected as sets forth above.
As for claim 11, BALINKSKY wherein the specification of processes comprises a discriminative band comparison process {see at least par. 0052}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiacek et al (US 2015/0058229): A recognition engine is configured to obtain a descriptor set associated with an identified object represented within a digital repression.
Vasil et al (US 2020/0269511): prevention of black listed parts from being 3D-printed.
Hudson (US 11,221,740): As three-dimensional (3D) printing and additive manufacturing becomes a way for individuals and companies to distribute physical goods, there is a growing need for creators of physical goods to enable customers to customize 3D printed objects while protecting core electronic assets in the form of the files used to define and print the objects.
Osterkamp et al (US 12,663,779): A three-dimensional parts system includes a three-dimensional printer configured to print a part for a consumer and a controller. The controller is configured to receive a request to print the part, determine that the part is qualified for three-dimensional printing in compliance with a certification standard, output a first signal to the three-dimensional printer to initiate printing of the part, output a second signal to prompt the consumer to submit information related to the part, and determine that the part complies with the certification standard based on the information submitted by the consumer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. 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). 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.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights