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 . The amendment filed 03/05/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As to claim 1, last line, the subject matter description of “wherein the modified geometry improves accuracy of the produced object”, as amended, in the specification is non–existing. While the claimed invention reads "wherein the modified geometry improves accuracy of the produced object", the specification reads:
"[0057] Then, in step 118, a rigid mapping between the actual geometry and the target geometry can be determined… The local tolerance ranges are tolerance ranges that are defined locally on the geometry of the object. For example, a region on the object that does not interact with other elements or components can have a large tolerance range. By contrast, regions of the object that interact with other elements or components have small tolerance ranges, because these must be manufactured more accurately. Furthermore, the rigid mapping can minimize deviations between the actual geometry and the target geometry outside the local tolerance ranges".
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, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 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 applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the term "significant" in line 23 is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "significant" is 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 apprised of the scope of the invention. No definition of “significant” is elaborated in the description.
Claim 1, last line, recites the limitation "the modified geometry". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is a "modified model geometry" anteceding this limitation in the claim, there is no "modified geometry" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: the claim recites:
determining whether there is at least one deviation present between the target geometry and the actual geometry… wherein at least the step of determining, if at least one deviation is present, results in a first non-rigid mapping, the first non-rigid mapping associating two geometries with each other by means of a parameter set and describing the determined at least one deviation… and wherein the first and second non-rigid mapping are a non-rigid registration
These limitations are substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: relationships, formulas or equations, calculations. As to the limitations “wherein at least the step of determining, if at least one deviation is present, results in a first non-rigid mapping, the first non-rigid mapping associating two geometries with each other by means of a parameter set and describing the determined at least one deviation… and wherein the first and second non-rigid mapping are a non-rigid registration”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, a non-rigid mapping and a non-rigid registration are mathematical. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0019] A non-rigid mapping is a mathematical transformation which assigns coordinates from one space to corresponding coordinates from another space. In contrast to a rigid mapping, which only comprises translations and rotations and thus has six degrees of freedom, a non-rigid mapping can also take into account deformations, both on global and local orders of magnitude. The number of degrees of freedom here is significantly greater than in rigid mappings and is limited in practice by the resolution of the mapping.
[0020] To calculate a non-rigid mapping, two steps are necessary: first, a mathematical model which describes the mapping is provided. This model has a certain parameter set which must be determined. In addition, a suitable mapping is determined for the particular case and thus the parameter set of the mathematical model found is the one which enables the optimal assignment of the geometries under consideration
[0023] Non-rigid mappings represent features of an object that logically correspond to each other in the different geometries. This means that the topology or the neighborhoods are taken into account in determining the mapping. Therefore, the non-rigid mapping can also be used as a registration'
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong two: The claim recites the additional element computer implemented as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “in an iterative manufacturing compensation process… wherein the model geometry is used to produce the object… producing the object using the model geometry… repeating at least the steps of producing, measuring, determining and changing as long as the determined at least one deviation is outside a predefined tolerance range for the determined at least one deviation, wherein repeating takes place until there are no longer significant deviations between the actual geometry of the object, produced using the modified model geometry, and the target geometry" and "wherein the modified geometry improves accuracy of the produced object", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
As to the limitations "for modifying a model geometry of an object… changing the model geometry into a modified model geometry based on the determined at least one deviation, if at least one deviation is present", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “providing a target geometry for the object; providing a model geometry for the object" and "obtain an actual geometry of the object”, they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter). See also MPEP § 2106.05(g). As to the "providing/provide", the term is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description.
As to the limitations "using the produced object to… by measuring the object", they amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the additional element computer implemented at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The implementation on a computing system is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to the limitations "model geometry is used to produce the object… producing the object using the model geometry", the limitations are so broad that little is known about how they are performed. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0015] The model geometry can be the geometry used to produce the object, for example, using the tool. The model geometry thus determines the shape of the object on which the tool is based when manufacturing the object. For example, the object can be produced using a casting mold, a punching die, or an additive manufacturing device…
[0069]… model geometry can be used to produce an object in a subtractive manufacturing process, e.g. CNC milling. In this case the geometry that is used for programming the CNC milling tool is corrected'.
As to the limitations "wherein the modified geometry improves accuracy of the produced object", their subject matter description, as amended, in the specification is non–existing. (See 112 Rejections above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 1 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As to the limitations identified as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claim 15 recites substantially the same elements as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional element a computer program product is interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mathematical concepts of their independent claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong two:
As to the limitations "4… wherein the step of changing is only carried out for the region if the at least one deviation is outside a predefined tolerance range for the determined at least one deviation", "5… wherein the step of changing also comprises the following sub step: transferring the determined at least one deviation to the model geometry by means of the second non-rigid mapping, the second non-rigid mapping having an association between the target geometry and the model geometry and between the actual geometry and the model geometry", "7… wherein the step of changing also comprises the following sub step: changing the model geometry to the modified model geometry using the first non-rigid mapping", and "10… wherein the step of changing further comprises the following sub steps: providing at least one sub region of the model geometry, with the at least one sub region being associated with the determined at least one deviation; and changing the at least one sub region with the determined at least one deviation into at least one modified sub region; and providing the at least one sub region to modify the model geometry", they appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “9… wherein the step of using the model geometry to provide an actual geometry of the object further comprises the following sub step: providing the actual geometry from measurement data…”, they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power. As to the "providing/provide", the term is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description.
As to the limitations "of a computer tomographic measurement of the object", they amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 9 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. See also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As to the limitations identified as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laura Klein et al., (Klein hereinafter), A procedure for the evaluation and compensation of form errors by means of global isometric registration with subsequent local reoptimization, taken in view of Matthias Schweinoch et al., (Schweinoch hereinafter), An error adaptive, non-rigid registration method for the analysis of springback in sheet metal forming and further in view of Matthias Schweinoch et al., (Schweinoch(1) hereinafter), A non-rigid registration method for the efficient analysis of shape deviations in production engineering applications.
As to claim 1, Klein discloses… the following steps: providing a target geometry for the object (see “scan points can be arbitrarily assigned to the surface of the target geometry” in page 82, 5th paragraph); providing a model geometry for the object (see “discrete scan points representing the manufactured shape can be assigned to arbitrary points on the surface of the workpiece model” in page 82, 3rd paragraph)… determining whether there is at least one deviation present between the target geometry and the actual geometry (see "deviation" as "error", “actual shape is represented by a point cloud, which can, e.g., be received by optical or tactile scanning of the workpiece. The model of the target shape is represented in terms of a triangular mesh… exactly formulating the isometry within a proper objective function… As basis for computing the objective function, the differences between the Euclidean distances (2-norm) of two points pi, pj ϵ P of the point cloud and two corresponding points zi and zj on the target shape are computed… (1) With points pi fixed, the positions of the points zi on the target shape are optimized, i.e., arbitrarily moved on the target shape… (2)… The choice of a neighborhood is worthwhile because of the new objective function which takes distance differences of two points on the shapes into account” in page 83, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, last paragraph; “isometry [cf. Eq. (1)] is a practically relevant objective function for evaluating the error of the corresponding point pairs on both shapes” in page 86, next to last paragraph).
Klein does not disclose, but Schweinoch discloses a computer implemented method for modifying a model geometry of an object… wherein the model geometry is used to produce the object (see “Let R denote the reference geometry, i.e. some geometric model of the desired part. Conversely, let Q denote the test geometry, i.e. a geometric model of the as-built part. Shape deviations may then be encoded in terms of a set of correspondences (ui, vj), where ui is a point on the surface of R, and vj is a point on the surface of Q. Using the finite element method (FEM), commercial software packages are able to simulate the forming process including springback, thus directly yielding pairs of correspondences (uk, vk), where k is the index into the respective vertex table of the equally meshed representations of R and Q. Current state-of-the-art simulation systems such as AutoForm are further able to reuse this data to automatically generate compensated tool shapes” in page 1015, last paragraph to page 1016, 1st paragraph)… using the produced object to obtain an actual geometry of the object by measuring the object (see "actual geometry of the object" as "test shape Q is obtained by use of some coordinate measuring technology", “For physical prototyping and reverse engineering applications, determining the correspondences between the desired and the as-built part requires additional work. The test shape Q is obtained by use of some coordinate measuring technology, and represented by a mesh consisting of vertices V , edges E and faces F : Q = (V; E; F )” in page 1016, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-4)… changing the model geometry into a modified model geometry based on the determined at least one deviation, if at least one deviation is present; wherein at least the step of determining, if at least one deviation is present, results in a first non-rigid mapping, the first non-rigid mapping associating two geometries with each other by means of a parameter set and describing the determined at least one deviation (see "changing" as "applies a deformation", "modified model geometry" as geometry after "applies a deformation", and "mapping" as "registration", “If Q is also subject to shape deviations resulting from springback with respect to R… a non-rigid registration process, which not only rotates and translates Q to R in a best aligning manner, but also applies a deformation of Q onto R to allow for an accurate correspondence calculation” in page 1016, 2nd paragraph; “Let R denote the reference geometry, i.e. some geometric model of the desired part. Conversely, let Q denote the test geometry, i.e. a geometric model of the as-built part. Shape deviations may then be encoded in terms of a set of correspondences (ui, vj), where ui is a point on the surface of R, and vj is a point on the surface of Q” in page 1015, last paragraph to page 1016, 1st paragraph)…
About Examiner's interpretation of "mapping" as "registration", Examiner notes that the Specification reads '[0008]… The first and/or second non-rigid mapping can be a non-rigid registration'.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schweinoch with Klein, because Schweinoch discloses that "the test shape Q, represented by a mesh, is gradually deformed onto the reference shape R. This is achieved by hierarchical segmentation and rigid registration of the segments. The described partitioning procedure is error-adaptive, considering the per-vertex correspondence error to determine the primary axis of error, which is then used as the normal of the partitioning plane. Subsequently, the ICP method is applied to the individual segments, which results in a decomposition of the superordinated geometry. The restoration of connectivity can be achieved by use of laplacian mesh processing", and as a result, Schweinoch reports that "the proposed method registers large connected segments. This results in a lower deformation energy" (see page 1020, 1st & 2nd paragraphs).
Klein and Schweinoch do not disclose, but in a NPL citing Schweinoch, Schweinoch(1) discloses in an iterative manufacturing compensation process… producing the object using the model geometry; (see “During each iteration of the deformation loop, the test geometry is subdivided, the subsegments are rigidly registered, and the connectivity of the mesh is reestablished. In order to achieve a rapid convergence, the subdivision considers the per-vertex correspondence error (i.e. the distance between the source vertex and its projection onto the other geometry)” in page 145, col. 2, 5th paragraph; “The designed (or reference) shape is usually given in terms of a CAD data set, while the as-built (or test) geometry is acquired by digitization of the physically manufactured prototype” in page 137, 1st paragraph)… wherein the first and second non-rigid mapping are a non-rigid registration (see “a non-rigid registration method applicable to production engineering environments, specifically to the comparison of different shape variants, the analysis of deviations between designed and as-built part, or even the comparison of the as-built part with the forming tool geometry. The method is based on the idea of iteratively deforming the best-fit aligned test geometry onto the reference geometry in order to improve the correspondence calculation” in page 145, col. 2, 4th paragraph; page 140, Fig. 1); repeating at least the steps of producing, measuring, determining and changing as long as the determined at least one deviation is outside a predefined tolerance range for the determined at least one deviation (see “During each iteration of the deformation loop, the test geometry is subdivided, the subsegments are rigidly registered, and the connectivity of the mesh is reestablished. In order to achieve a rapid convergence, the subdivision considers the per-vertex correspondence error (i.e. the distance between the source vertex and its projection onto the other geometry)” in page 145, col. 2, 5th paragraph; “The designed (or reference) shape is usually given in terms of a CAD data set, while the as-built (or test) geometry is acquired by digitization of the physically manufactured prototype” in page 137, 1st paragraph; "deformation procedure is controlled by a termination criterion τ. For example, τ could be a function of the correspondence error (average or maximum), such that the procedure continues until the calculated correspondence error falls below some specified threshold" in page 139, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph), wherein repeating takes place until there are no longer significant deviations between the actual geometry of the object, produced using the modified model geometry, and the target geometry (see "a non-rigid registration method for the efficient calculation of correspondences in production engineering scenarios. By combination of several established methods from the field of geometric modeling, the test shape is iteratively deformed onto the reference shape. When the deformed test shape satisfiably approximates the reference geometry, correspondences are determined by projection" in page 137, col. 2, 1st paragraph)… and wherein the modified geometry improves accuracy of the produced object (see “the method results in a global deformation of the test shape, such that it more closely approximates the reference shape… Figure 7 shows an enlargement of the region which is significantly affected by the deformation… Despite the deformation that T^* was subjected to, the result mesh details are in strong agreement with those of R” in page 143, col. 2, 2nd paragraph).
About Examiner's interpretation of the limitations "wherein the modified geometry improves accuracy of the produced object", their subject matter description, as amended, in the specification is non–existing. (See 112 Rejections above).
Klein, Schweinoch, and Schweinoch(1) are analogous art because they are related to modeling object geometries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schweinoch(1) with Klein and Schweinoch, because Schweinoch(1) discloses "a non-rigid registration method for the efficient calculation of correspondences in production engineering scenarios. By combination of several established methods from the field of geometric modeling, the test shape is iteratively deformed onto the reference shape. When the deformed test shape satisfiably approximates the reference geometry, correspondences are determined by projection" (see page 137, col. 2, 1st paragraph), and as a result, Schweinoch(1) reports that the "method requires no explicit preprocessing or user handling. Due to its speed, it can be applied to large data sets that actually arise in production engineering scenarios" (see page 145, col. 2, 5th paragraph).
As to claim 2, Klein and Schweinoch do not disclose, but Schweinoch(1) discloses wherein the provided model geometry is a modified target geometry (see "modified target geometry" as "currently deformed test shape", 'During each iteration of the deformation procedure, a refined segmentation of the currently deformed test shape is generated. These segments are then rigidly registered to R, resulting in a loss of connectivity at the segment boundaries. Subsequently, the connectivity at the segment boundaries is reestablished. This segmentation-registration-stitching sequence is reiterated until the termination criterion τ is satisfied' in page 139, col. 2, 3rd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schweinoch(1) with Klein and Schweinoch, (see supra).
As to claim 4, Klein does not disclose, but Schweinoch discloses wherein the at least one deviation is assigned to a region of the model geometry, wherein the step of changing is only carried out for the region if the at least one deviation is outside a predefined tolerance range for the determined at least one deviation (see "a region" as "some segment", “Let Vk denote the set of vertices for some segment after k iterations of the algorithm, nk = ||Vk||. Note that due to the transformations applied throughout the previous k iterations, the elements of Vk have cartesian coordinates different from their original values in V.W.l.o.g., assume vertices vi ϵ Vk with 0 < i < nk. Let ei denote the error of correspondence for vertex vi,ei := ||vˆi - fnn(vˆi)||” in page 1018, 4th paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schweinoch with Klein, (see supra).
As to claim 5, Klein discloses … the second non-rigid mapping having an association between the target geometry and the model geometry and between the actual geometry and the model geometry (see “surface of the actual workpiece is scanned and the so-obtained scan points have to be assigned to corresponding points of the target shape defined by the workpiece model. From these correspondences, a field of deformation vectors can be computed… The task of finding appropriate correspondences is called registration. It is usually solved using rigid transformations, i.e., translation and rotation… a procedure for non-rigid registration is presented” in page 81, Abstract).
Klein does not disclose, but Schweinoch discloses wherein the step of changing also comprises the following sub step: transferring the determined at least one deviation to the model geometry by means of the second non-rigid mapping (see "non-rigid mapping" as "non-rigid registration", “solving a registration problem: given a test shape Q (scan points of the as-built geometry) and a reference shape R (CAD data of the desired geometry), a transformation S has to be found to fit both objects… a non-rigid registration method for the efficient analysis of springback is therefore presented. The test shape Q is iteratively partitioned into segments with respect to an error metric. The segments are locally registered using rigid registration subject to regulatory conditions. Resulting discontinuities are addressed by minimization of the deformation energy. The error metric uses information about the deviations computed based on the correspondences of the previous iteration, e.g. maximum errors or changes of the sign. This adaptive per-segment registration allows appropriate correspondences to be determined even under local geometric deviations” in page 1015, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schweinoch with Klein, (see supra).
As to claim 6, Klein discloses wherein the second non-rigid mapping maps the model geometry to the target geometry and the model geometry to the actual geometry (see “surface of the actual workpiece is scanned and the so-obtained scan points have to be assigned to corresponding points of the target shape defined by the workpiece model. From these correspondences, a field of deformation vectors can be computed… The task of finding appropriate correspondences is called registration. It is usually solved using rigid transformations, i.e., translation and rotation… a procedure for non-rigid registration is presented” in page 81, Abstract).
As to claim 7, Klein does not disclose, but Schweinoch discloses wherein the step of changing also comprises the following sub step: changing the model geometry to the modified model geometry using the first non-rigid mapping (see "changing" as "applies a deformation" and "modified model geometry" as geometry after "applies a deformation", “If Q is also subject to shape deviations resulting from springback with respect to R… a non-rigid registration process, which not only rotates and translates Q to R in a best aligning manner, but also applies a deformation of Q onto R to allow for an accurate correspondence calculation” in page 1016, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schweinoch with Klein, (see supra).
As to claim 8, Klein discloses wherein the method also comprises, before the step of determining whether at least one deviation is present between the target geometry and the actual geometry, the following step: determining a rigid mapping between the actual geometry and the target geometry to register the actual geometry and the target geometry, wherein the rigid mapping takes into account predefined local tolerance ranges for different regions of the target geometry and minimizes deviations between the actual geometry and the target geometry outside the local tolerance ranges (see “rigid registration problem is mainly solved by iterative methods… pair-wise correspondences between the points of the actual workpiece and the points of the target design are determined… the optimal rigid transformation with respect to sum of squared distances between these pairs is computed… After the transformation, the correspondences are refined and another transformation is computed. These two steps are repeated until the termination criterion is met, e.g., until the improvement falls below a predefined threshold… iterative closest point (ICP) [3, 8], where each scan point of the actual shape is assigned to its closest point on the target design… provides good solutions in cases of a well-chosen initial solution and small deviations between the actual and the target shape” in page 82, next to last & last paragraphs).
As to claim 9, Klein discloses wherein the step of using the model geometry to provide an actual geometry of the object further comprises the following sub step: providing the actual geometry from measurement data of a computer tomographic measurement of the object (see “actual shape is represented by a point cloud, which can, e.g., be received by optical or tactile scanning of the workpiece” in page 83, col. 1, last paragraph).
As to claim 10, Klein does not disclose, but Schweinoch discloses wherein the step of changing further comprises the following sub steps: providing at least one sub region of the model geometry, with the at least one sub region being associated with the determined at least one deviation (see "deviation" as "error metric", “test shape Q is iteratively partitioned into segments with respect to an error metric. The segments are locally registered using rigid registration subject to regulatory conditions. Resulting discontinuities are addressed by minimization of the deformation energy. The error metric uses information about the deviations computed based on the correspondences of the previous iteration, e.g. maximum errors or changes of the sign. This adaptive per-segment registration allows appropriate correspondences to be determined even under local geometric deviations” in page 1015, Abstract); and changing the at least one sub region with the determined at least one deviation into at least one modified sub region (see "changing" as "applies a deformation", “If Q is also subject to shape deviations resulting from springback with respect to R… a non-rigid registration process, which not only rotates and translates Q to R in a best aligning manner, but also applies a deformation of Q onto R to allow for an accurate correspondence calculation” in page 1016, 2nd paragraph); and providing the at least one sub region to modify the model geometry (see “laplacian mesh processing… resulting in a deformed representation of Q that evenly distributes the deformation while preserving local geometric details” in page 1018, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schweinoch with Klein, (see supra).
As to claim 15, Klein does not disclose, but Schweinoch discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (see “Let R denote the reference geometry, i.e. some geometric model of the desired part. Conversely, let Q denote the test geometry, i.e. a geometric model of the as-built part. Shape deviations may then be encoded in terms of a set of correspondences (ui, vj), where ui is a point on the surface of R, and vj is a point on the surface of Q. Using the finite element method (FEM), commercial software packages are able to simulate the forming process including springback, thus directly yielding pairs of correspondences (uk, vk), where k is the index into the respective vertex table of the equally meshed representations of R and Q. Current state-of-the-art simulation systems such as AutoForm are further able to reuse this data to automatically generate compensated tool shapes” in page 1015, last paragraph to page 1016, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schweinoch with Klein, (see supra).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klein taken in view of Schweinoch further in view of Schweinoch(1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sacharow, (Sacharow hereinafter), Non-rigid isometric ICP: A practical registration method for the analysis and compensation of form errors in production engineering (see IDS dated 10/25/2024).
As to claim 12, Sacharow discloses wherein the first non-rigid mapping and the second non-rigid mapping are defined by means of control points (see “generate a NURBS volume that approximates the correspondences by deforming the space around the embedded source shape. NURBS volume is defined by a 3d-lattice of control points and the deformation of the embedded volume is due to displacements of control points” in page 1762, 3rd paragraph).
Klein, Schweinoch, Schweinoch(1), and Sacharow are analogous art because they are related to modifying object model geometries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sacharow with Klein, Schweinoch, and Schweinoch(1), because Sacharow discloses that "[a]fter the NURBS volume is computed, any point-based objects (e.g., mesh, point cloud, NC program) inside the volume can be easily deformed. Therefore, each vertex of the object is displaced by applying the deformation function (6). For example, we can conduct springback compensation on a hat profile" (see page 1762, last paragraph), and as a result, Sacharow reports that "the meshes of the corresponding forming tools (binder, die, punch) can be directly modified in the exact same manner Fig. 4(b). Thus, in the next step, the optimized tools for the compensated geometry can be validated by the simulation again. If necessary, the compensation process may be iterated until the workpiece meets the geometrical requirements. In doing so, the production process is optimized virtually. This reduces the number of trial-and-error iterations, where the forming tool has to be manufactured and the real forming process must be executed" (see page 1763, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 13, Sacharow discloses wherein the control points have a density which is greater in at least one predefined region of the object than outside the at least one predefined region, wherein the predefined region comprises an environment of a surface of the object and an environment around (see “generate a NURBS volume that approximates the correspondences by deforming the space around the embedded source shape. NURBS volume is defined by a 3d-lattice of control points and the deformation of the embedded volume is due to displacements of control points. With respect to registration, first, we generate an initial NURBS volume that encloses the source and the target shape. Then, the displacements of control points are calculated in order to approximate the discrete deformation field of correspondences. Therefore, we formulate the approximation problem as a set of linear equations and solve it in a sense of least squares using SVD. Finally, the embedded shapes, e.g., the source shape or the meshes of forming tools, are deformed by the obtained NURBS volume” in page 1762, 3rd paragraph) the determined at least one deviation if the determined at least one deviation exceeds a predefined threshold value (see “3.1.1. Overview of the algorithm The basic idea illustrated in Fig. 1 is similar to the one underlying ICP… We terminate if the decrease of the isometry error (1) between two consecutive iterations is below a user-defined threshold” in page 1760, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph), and comprises an environment around the determined at least one deviation if the determined at least one deviation has a gradient above a predefined gradient threshold value (see 'we employ gradient domain mesh editing… If one regards the x-, y-, and z-component of the yet unknown vertex vectors of the edited mesh as scalar-valued functions on R3, then their gradients uniquely encode the orientations prescribed on the faces (hence the name ‘‘gradient domain editing’’)' in page 1761, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sacharow with Klein, Schweinoch, and Schweinoch(1), (see supra).
As to claim 14, Sacharow discloses wherein the first non-rigid mapping changes a topology of the model geometry only within a predefined modification range (see "changes a topology of the model geometry only within a predefined modification range" as "different kinds of disturbances were introduced ranging from macro-holes over random vertex displacement to subsampling, giving the three additional instances of the most heavily bent mesh in Fig. 5(f)–(h)", 'the target geometry, which we intuitively refer to by ‘‘hat profile’’, was designed in a CAD environment and exported to a triangular mesh… Pure bending along one of the principle axes was applied at four different levels of strength to obtain the first part of a series of source meshes shown in Fig. 5(b)–(e)… Topology was maintained during this operation so we got ground truth correspondences between source and target vertices (pi, qi) along the way. Furthermore, to be able to assess robustness of our algorithm, different kinds of disturbances were introduced ranging from macro-holes over random vertex displacement to subsampling, giving the three additional instances of the most heavily bent mesh in Fig. 5(f)–(h)' in page 1763, col. 2, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sacharow with Klein, Schweinoch, and Schweinoch(1), (see supra).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the drawings objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the IDS objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 112 second paragraph, the amendment corrected all deficiencies and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 7, 6th paragraph to page 8, 2nd paragraph):
‘… Applicant amends claim 1 to recite "producing the object using the model geometry". Applicant thanks the Examiner for the suggestion.
First, the amendment above requires producing an actual object and is therefore not intended use. The Examiner's central criticism was that "wherein the model geometry can be used to produce the object" is merely intended use language, because "no actual production is ever performed in the body of the claim." The amendment converts this to an affirmative step by using the phrase "producing the object using the model geometry". This directly eliminates the Examiner's stated basis…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"…
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures… In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document.… Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it"’.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as to the limitations " in an iterative manufacturing compensation process… wherein the model geometry is used to produce the object… producing the object using the model geometry… repeating at least the steps of producing, measuring, determining and changing as long as the determined at least one deviation is outside a predefined tolerance range for the determined at least one deviation, wherein repeating takes place until there are no longer significant deviations between the actual geometry of the object, produced using the modified model geometry, and the target geometry" and "wherein the modified geometry improves accuracy of the produced object", they are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations. These limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. There is no elaboration of any special meanings for these amended limitations in the claims and Application description. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) supra and Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Applicant further argues, (see page 8, 3rd paragraph to page 13, 2nd paragraph):
‘… "measuring the produced object to obtain actual geometry" in the amended claims makes clear that the data gathering is inseparably tied to a physical artifact. This mirrors the logic of SiRF Tech., which the examiner himself cited approvingly: just as GPS receiver hardware was integral to the claims in SiRF, the physical manufactured object and its measurement are now integral here.
By including producing and measuring within the iterative repeat loop, the loop is no longer a purely computational feedback cycle operating on abstract geometric data but a physical manufacturing feedback loop that iteratively improves real parts. This brings the claims squarely within the type of practical application the courts have found patent-eligible: a computer-implemented process that controls and improves a physical industrial manufacturing process, analogous to the improved technical result found sufficient in cases like Enfish and McRO.
The added closing clause "whereby the modified model geometry improves geometric accuracy of the produced object" is optional but useful. It makes the technical effect explicit on the face of the claim, which aids both the § 101 analysis and potential prosecution history…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05 Particular Machine [R-07.2022] (b)… while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility… All claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo… McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games… ("[T]here is nothing that requires a method ‘be tied to a machine or transform an article’ to be patentable")… DDR Holdings, LLC v.Hotels.com… ("[I]n Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an 'inventive concept.'")'
"2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment [R-10.2019]… Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr... Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application… vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power… a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu2… (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power”.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because while the M-or-T test is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test. A claim must pass the two-part framework from Alice/Mayo for eligibility. (See MPEP 2106.05(b) and Independent claim 1, Step 2B supra).
As to the limitations "using the produced object to… by measuring the object", they amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h) supra.
As to the limitations "wherein the modified geometry improves accuracy of the produced object", their subject matter description, as amended, in the specification is non–existing. (See 112 Rejections above).
As to claim 15, regarding the Claim Rejections 35 USC § 101 for claiming a computer program product, the amendment corrected all deficiencies and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the rejection under 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art disclosures in the previous rejection fail to teach the newly added limitations. These features of Applicants' claims and arguments were newly added. The previous Office Action could not have pointed out disclosures of a limitation that was not claimed before. Independent claims are rejected over Klein taken in view of Schweinoch and further in view of Schweinoch(1), instead of Klein taken in view of Schweinoch, and Schweinoch(1) is newly cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
International Pub. No. CN 103488832, discloses 'complex curved surface part geometric restoration of non-rigid registration… firstly, the initial transformation given template curve and measure point set, then using alternative iteration ICP non-rigid registration distribution optimization strategy and free of deformation, establishing analyzing relationship between design template curve and the measurement point' (see page 5, 10th paragraph).
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Prosecution Insights