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 11/7/24, wherein:
Claims 1-10, 12-17 are currently pending;
Claims 4-9, 12-13, 17 have been amended;
Claim 11 has been cancelled.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1 recite the steps of “defining in a two-dimensional plane a layer of the construct in terms of one or more polygonal primitives; for each primitive defining first and second coordinates in the two dimensions representing corner points of the or each primitive; defining a common third coordinate based on the thickness of the or each primitive perpendicular to the two-dimensional plane; and forming a data set based on the first second and third coordinates” are the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a computer”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being perform in the mind (e.g. including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). For example, a person can use pen and paper to draw out the two dimensional plane has Y and Y axis, and the person can draw or add layers on the 2D plane. A person can also draw a thickness on the plan by adding third coordination (z), just like drawing a cubic which will form a data set based on x, y, z coordinate. 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 claims recite an abstract idea with respect to step 2A, prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to step 2A, prong 2. In particular, the claim using (a computer program) to perform all the claimed step of “defining…; defining…; defining…; forming….” The process in all of these steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Therefore, 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 step 2B, 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. Viewed as a whole, this additional claim element does 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. Therefore, the independent is 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 2-6 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bourke Paul (an article entitled “SLC-Slice Format”, page 1-6, May 2021) from Applicant’s IDS filed on 11/7/24.
As for claim 1 , BOURKE PAUL discloses a method for preparing a data set for a construct to be printed in layers (see at least page 1, 1st paragraph), the method comprising using a computer program to carry out the steps of: a) defining in a two-dimensional plane a layer of the construct in terms of one or more polygonal primitives {see at least page 1, Contour Layer section); b) for each primitive defining first and second coordinates in the two dimensions representing corner points of the or each primitive {see page 4, lines 15-32}; c) defining a common third coordinate based on the thickness of the or each primitive perpendicular to the two-dimensional plane {see page 5, line 18 to page 6, line 10}; and d) forming a data set based on the first second and third coordinates {see page 5, line 18 to page 6, line 10}.
As for claim 2, BOURKE PAUL discloses defining additional multiple layers of the construct according to further data sets, whereby the additional layers are layers printable substantially on top of preceding layers and the additional layers are identified in the data set {see at least page 1, Contour Layer section).
As for claim 3, BOURKE PAUL discloses wherein the or each polygonal primitive is a four sided polygon and each data set includes four corner point coordinates {see at least page 4, lines 15-32}.
As for claim 4, BOURKE PAUL discloses wherein, the two-dimensional plane is an X and Y cartesian plane corresponding to the flat bed printing plane of a conventional 3D printer, and the thickness is a dimension in the Z plane corresponding to the height above the flat printing bed {see at least page 1, Contour layer section, page 5, lines 18-35}.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MARK ET AL (US 2017/0334136) from Applicant’s IDS filed on 11/7/24.
As for claim 17, MARK discloses 17. A 3D printing technique for comprising utilizing a printer instruction file defining a path for a printer nozzle, and utilizing a further printer recipe file and a further material delivery file to provide at least one of: f) print head travel speed relative to print bed {see MARK, abstract, par. 0088 and figures 2G, 2H}.
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) 5-9 and 17is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOURKE PAUL as applied to claims above and further in view of MARK ET AL (US 2017/0334136). Herein after MARK.
As for claim 5, BOURKE PAUL discloses claimed invention as indicated above except for providing printer control software which accepts the data set and wherein the control software performs a slicing step, incrementally slicing the or each primitive perpendicular to one of the two dimensions multiple times, and thereby defining a print start point and a print end point along each slice for the or each primitive. However, such limitations are suggested in at least figure 7, pars. 0118, 0122, 0129, 0141, 0203 of the MARK reference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of MARK into the system of BOURKE PAUL with reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the system with the enhanced capacity of performing a slicing steps for the 3D printer.
As for claim 6, which discloses wherein the two-dimensional plane is an X and Y cartesian plane corresponding to the flat bed printing plane of a conventional 3D printer, and the thickness is a dimension in the Z plane corresponding to the height above the flat printing bed, and the slicing is performed in the Z plane and said increments are steps in the X or Y directions {see MARK at least figures 11H, 15, pars. 0204, 0267}.
As for claim 7, which discloses providing a 3D printer including a print head and a controller arranged to move the print head according to instructions derived from the printer control software {see MARK at least pars. 0007, 0121, 0122, 0125, 0129, 0132, 0140, 0306}.
As for claim 8, which discloses wherein said controller accepts said instructions as a print file for each layer to be printed {see MARK at least pars. 0077, 0117, 0121, 0122, 0125, 0129, 0132, 0140, 0306}.
As for claim 9, which discloses providing a print material charging pump, a print nozzle, and a printer bed wherein said controller accepts further instructions as a separate file or files, for example a .xml file(s), said further instructions including at least one of: a) printer nozzle cleaning instructions; b) pump charging pressure instructions; c) nozzle pressure while printing instructions; d) nozzle pressure while not printing instructions; e) pump pressure PID parameters; f) print head travel speed relative to print bed; g) print bed temperature during printing; h) printer enclosure temperature; i) print material droplet size (pump time on) instructions. j) nozzle height above print layer; k) pump run duration during charging or cleaning; l) nozzle opening size selection; m) nozzle/print head dwell time; n) nozzle lift height between printing steps; o) print material preparation instructions; p) progress with get print file instructions; q) post print cleaning instructions; and r) post print printer bed temperature instructions {see MARK discloses at least f) a print head travel speed relative to print bed in at least par. 0088}.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STARODUBTSEV (US 2016/0059481) in view of POLTORAK (US 2018/0017345).
As for claim 15, STARODUBTSEV discloses a 3D printer arranged to selectively print materials having a range of kinematic viscosity from about 0.1 mm.sup.2/sec to about 5000 mm.sup.2/sec {see at least abstract, par. 0058}. However, STARODUBTSEV does not explicitly discloses the printer including a print material storage vessel and a print head nozzle for dispensing the materials in fluid communication with the storage vessel via fluid path, fluid flow from the vessel to the nozzle via the fluid path being induced by a pump which pressurizes in use the vessel. However, such limitations are suggested at least in pars. 0008, 0017, 0037, 0079-0085, 0195, 0197, 0213, 0270 of POLTORAK reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of POLTORAK into the system of STARODUBTSEV with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the system with the enhanced capacity of having a print material storage vessel for dispensing the material in fluid communication with storage vessel via fluid path.
As for claim 16, which discloses wherein the pump includes a piezoelectric element for inducing said pressurization, and optionally a closable valve is included to interrupt the fluid path {see POLTORAK at least pars. 0143, 0149, 0152, 1053}.
Claims 10, 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hana (US 2017/0286567): Systems and methods for interactively producing 3D realizations of vector graphics are disclosed. A vector graphic primitive is defined and then used to construct more complex, composite vector graphics from which volume encompassing 3D printable meshes are generated. This 3D printable meshes are automatically converted into instructions for a 3D printer that then produces a physically realized object corresponding in shape and size to the composite vector graphic.
Chandu et al (US 2013/0076813): The method includes receiving print job data, rasterizing the print job data to generate image data for each page of the print job data to be printed, calculating a coverage per unit area for two or more color planes of each page of the image data and calculating a flushing mask to flush nozzles of the inkjet print head.
Yamauchi (US 2008/0225051): A graphic apparatus that draws an object three-dimensionally using a level plane and a height-axis perpendicular to the level plane includes a receiving unit, a calculating unit, and a drawing unit.
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