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 .
2. For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are "pre-AIA " provisions.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Reissue application 16/833,447 is a reissue of patent application 15/604,624, filed 05/24/2017, now US 10,303,159 (issue date 05/28/2019).
The assignee of record is Divergent Technologies, Inc.
3. A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application on 03/09/2026 after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
4. Claims 1-51, 54-60, and 63-67 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 25, 26, 28, 29, 43-45, and 65 are amended. Claims 52, 53, 61 and 62 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Analysis components being configured to obtain a model of one or more vehicle structures…and to analyze the model to obtain analysis results including a physics-based result and a cost result…” in claim 1.
“An integrator configured to evaluate the analysis results against criteria to determine whether the model satisfies the criteria” in claim 1.
“an iterative analysis is performed by the one or more analysis components and the integrator” in claim 1.
“The printer is configured to additively manufacture the one or more vehicle structures with printing instructions based on the model that satisfies the criteria”
“The integrator is further configured to determine the printing instructions” in claim 43.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
8. Claims 13 and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 37 and 81 of copending Application No. 16/833,420 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 13 of instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘420 application
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
Performing an iterative analysis including
Obtaining a model of one or more vehicle structures, wherein the model is characterized, at least in part, by a design variable,
Obtaining a model comprising one or more vehicle components, wherein the model is characterized, at least in part, by a design variable;
Analyzing the model to obtain analysis results including a physics-based result and a cost result, the physics-based result being based on a physics-based analysis of the model based on a value of the design variable, and the cost result being based on a cost analysis of the model based on the value of the design variable; and
Performing a coupled analysis using an integrator comprises computer-readable instructions executed to: obtain a physics-based an analysis result from an an analysis of the model by a physics-based analysis factor, wherein the physics-based analysis result is based on a value of the design variable, obtain a cost analysis result from an analysis of the model by a cost analysis factor, wherein the cost result is based on the value of the design variable,
evaluating the analysis results against criteria to determine whether the model satisfies the criteria,
Evaluate the physics-based analysis result and the cost-analysis result against criteria to obtain an evaluation, the evaluation indicating whether or not the model satisfies the criteria,
and if the model does not satisfy the criteria, iterating the iterative analysis by updating the model, including updating the value of the design variable until the model satisfies the criteria; and
Obtaining a revised model and iterating the coupled analysis with the revised model if the evaluation indicates the model does not satisfy the criteria, wherein the revised model includes a revised value of the design variable; and
additively manufacturing the one or more vehicle structures with printing instructions based on the model that satisfies the criteria.
storing in a computer memory the model that meets the criteria, if the evaluation indicates the model satisfies the criteria.
The newly amended claim 1 in the instant application is drawn to performing an iterative physics-based and cost-based analysis of a model based on a value of a design variable of a model which results in the printing/manufacturing of the one or more vehicle structures; whereas, the 37 of the ‘420 application are also drawn to performing an iterative physics-based and cost-based analysis of a model based on a value of a design variable which results in storing in a computer memory the model that meets the criteria. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have replaced the printing/manufacturing of the vehicle structure with storing of the model in memory for future use such as for further analysis and/or printing at a later time and the results would have been predictable because having access to a stored model was desirable to later reference the model for further modification and/or printing.
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 81 of copending Application No. 16/833,420 (reference application) for the same reasons as outlined with respect to claim 13 above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objection
9. Claim 44 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-12, 14-24, 26-44, 46-51, 54-60, and 63-67 are allowable over the prior art; however, as noted above, claims 13 and 25 are rejected under double patenting.
11. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The amended claims overcome the prior rejections under Faruque and Lamb. Specifically, in the related Reissue 16/833,420 on the same patent, PTAB determined that although the term “design variable” is broad, Faruque’s physics-based analysis and Lamb’s cost analysis does not use the same design variable (see pages 4-5 of the PTAB Decision). Specifically, PTAB agreed with Appellant’s argument that the rejection failed to identify a common design variable that a physics-based and cost analyses are each based on. Thus, in light of the related decision on the same art, Faruque and Lamb, and the amendment adding the same feature regarding the same “design variable” to the claims in this application, Examiner finds that the amended claims overcome the prior art rejections previously applied. However, it is noted a rejection under double patenting has been introduced in light of these claim amendments.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHNA SINGH DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4PM 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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at 571-272-3744. 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.
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/William H. Wood/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992