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 08/09/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 3 and 11 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the features disclosed in the description and claims should be illustrated in the drawings in a form of graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation. Element numbers drawn to empty boxes does not provide adequate labeling for Figure(s) 1-3.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes that the NPL document #1 lacks an English translation. The document has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to by it has not been considered. Applicant submitted an examination of the foreign priority application (see below). The document is in German and has no English translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
81
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15, the cited feature "having non-transitory instructions" in the claim makes it indefinite for failing to point out the precise meaning of the cited feature. A computer medium may be non-transitory, but not instructions.
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, or at least the step of changing is carried out by means of a second non-rigid mapping, the second non-rigid mapping associating two geometries to each other by means of a parameter set.
These limitations are substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: relationships, formulas or equations, calculations. The claimed “wherein at least the step of determining, if at least one deviation is present, results in a first non-rigid mapping”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mathematical model. 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'
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.
The independent claim also recites the additional element “wherein the model geometry can be used to produce the object", which is no more than intended use.
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… repeating at least the steps of using, 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", 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; using the model geometry to provide an actual geometry of the object”, these limitations 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 limitations "providing/provide", the term is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description.
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, the additional element “wherein the model geometry can be used to produce the object" is no more than intended use, because no actual production is ever performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, 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… repeating at least the steps of using, 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" appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers as a tool to perform an existing process – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mathematical equation). As to the limitations "repeating at least the steps of using, 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", see MPEP 2106.05 Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (d)(II): 'Performing repetitive calculations, Flook2… (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values)'.
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.
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 invoking computers and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, 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”. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
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", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers as a tool to perform an existing process. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
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 of a computer tomographic measurement of the object”, these limitations 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. See also MPEP § 2106.05(g). (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). As to the limitations "providing/provide", the term is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity (gathering data) that provides data for the exception, with mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (“a computer”) and invoking other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (the "tomographic measurement"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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, no additional elements in the dependent claims provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 15, it claims a computer program product having non-transitory instructions, which fails to fall into one of the categories of invention recited in 35 USC 101. A computer program product per se does not fall within any of the categories recited in 35 USC 101. The invention is identified as ineligible subject matter.
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.
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).
While Klein discloses a model geometry for the object, Klein fails to disclose a computer implemented method for modifying a model geometry of an object, wherein the model geometry can be used to produce the object… using the model geometry to provide an actual geometry of the 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; 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, or at least the step of changing is carried out by means of a second non-rigid mapping, the second non-rigid mapping associating two geometries to each other by means of a parameter set; and repeating at least the steps of using, 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.
Schweinoch discloses a computer implemented method for modifying a model geometry of an object, wherein the model geometry can be 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 model geometry to provide an actual geometry of 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), or at least the step of changing is carried out by means of a second non-rigid mapping, the second non-rigid mapping associating two geometries to each other by means of a parameter set (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)… repeating at least the steps of using, 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 (see “algorithm iteratively deforms the geometry of Q onto R by segmentation, registration and stitching. In order to reduce the number of iterations, the segmentation scheme should take into account the correspondence error” in page 1016, 4th paragraph; “A segment which exhibits an error of correspondence below some user-specified value… may be eligible again after the mesh is deformed in the stitching phase” in page 1018, 3rd 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'.
Klein and Schweinoch are analogous art because they are related to for 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 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).
As to claim 4, 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).
As to claim 5, 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).
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).
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, 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).
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, 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).
As to claim 15, Schweinoch discloses a computer program product having instructions executable on a computer, which when executed on a computer cause the computer to carry out the method as claimed in 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).
Claims 2 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klein taken in view of Schweinoch, 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 2, While Klein and Schweinoch disclose a target geometry, Klein and Schweinoch fail to disclose wherein the provided model geometry is a modified target geometry.
However in a NPL cited by Schweinoch, Sacharow discloses wherein the provided model geometry is a modified target geometry (see '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)' in page 1763, col. 2, 1st paragraph).
Klein, Schweinoch, 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 and Schweinoch, 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 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).
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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the drawings objections, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The features disclosed in the description and claims should be illustrated in the drawings in a form of graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation and not element numbers drawn to empty boxes.
Regarding the IDS objections, the amendment corrected no deficiencies. Applicant submitted an examination of the foreign priority application (see above). The document is in German and has no English translation. Objection is not about "PCT Application No. PCT/EP2020/071798" but it's about
PNG
media_image2.png
33
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the Specification objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 112 second paragraph, claim is cancelled.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 8, next to last paragraph to page 9, 3rd paragraph):
‘… claim 1 has been amended to specify that: the method includes an iterative loop (as previously recited in claim 3), and the loop repeats the steps of using, determining, and changing until the deviations between the actual geometry (of the object produced using the modified model geometry) and the target geometry are no longer significant.
These amendments clarify that:
* the modified model geometry is used to produce a physical object;
* the actual geometry is obtained from the produced object; and
* the non-rigid mappings are part of a feedback mechanism used to improve the production process.
Thus, the claimed method is rooted in industrial manufacturing and produces a technical effect, namely improving the geometric accuracy of manufactured components via automated feedback and model compensation.
As such, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea alone but to a technically implemented method involving physical measurements, geometry correction, and production outcomes’
Examiner's response: Applicant's arguments is not persuasive, because claim 1 does not read "produce a physical object” or “feedback mechanism used to improve the production process”, as argued. Claim 1 does read "wherein the model geometry can be used to produce the object". As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the additional element “wherein the model geometry can be used to produce the object" is no more than intended use, because no actual production is ever performed in the body of the claim. No skilled artisan would interpret these argued features as claimed features, because the claims themselves are mute about such argued features. The claims must stand on their own. Examiner is not allowed to bring limitations set forth in the description into the claims. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the Specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the Specification into the claims. See Synopsys3 at page 20, 2nd paragraph, citing Accenture: 'The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves. See Accenture4… (admonishing that “the important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim”); see also Content Extraction5'.
Applicant further argues, (see page 9, next to last paragraph to page 12, 3rd paragraph):
‘… The Office in rejecting claim 1 has failed to identify any specific abstract idea that the claims are "directed to" (e.g., see OA pgs. 3-4). The Office alleges under prong 1 that individual limitations can be understood as recitation of mental process or mathematical calculations (e.g., see Office Action, pg. 4). The Office under prong 2 addresses other limitations without considering what the claim as a whole is directed to.
"Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations."…
Claim 1 is necessarily rooted in computer technology and an improvement in that computer technology. It includes limitations related to control of a simulated system and a computer model for that simulated system (e.g., reciting a specific system "modifying a model geometry of an object, wherein the model geometry can be used to produce the object". It further recites this specific simulated system.
Additionally, claim 1 recites a complex process with computations too intensive, complex and numerous to be practically able to be performed in the human mind, including "modifying a model geometry of an object, wherein the model geometry can be used to produce the object,"…
The claims are not directed to a simple case, but a complex one, too difficult to be performed in the human mind… While the claims may mention mathematical terms (such as geometries, mapping and parameters), the claims are not "directed to" a specific mathematical calculation or other operations capable of being performed in the human mind. The Office does not allege that the claims are directed to any other abstract concepts such as organizing human activity or other judicial exceptions…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.04(b) Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena & Products of Nature [R-07.2022], III. MENTAL PROCESSES… A. A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process… Examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: • a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites, SiRF… B. A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson… (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys… (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper")'.
SiRF6 Tech. reads (bold emphasis added):
‘A GPS receiver is a machine and is integral to each of the claims at issue. Claim 1 of the ’801 patent is expressly directed in its preamble to “calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver.” ’801 patent col.12 ll.28-29. It also refers to “computing absolute position” by updating an “estimate of position of the GPS receiver,” providing an estimate of the time at which a GPS receiver receives a plurality of satellite signals, and computing the position “of the GPS receiver.” Id. col.12 ll. 28-40. Further, claim 1 requires “pseudoranges” that estimate the distance from “the GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites.” Id. col.12 ll.31-32. Pseudoranges, which are the distances or estimated distances between satellites and a GPS receiver, can exist only with respect to a particular GPS receiver that receives the satellite signals. Claim 1 of the ’187 patent is similarly tied to a GPS receiver. It requires the estimation of “states” that are “associated with a satellite signal receiver,” and the formation of a “dynamic model… to compute [the] position of the satellite signal receiver.” See ’187 patent col.20 ll.46-54. It is clear that the methods at issue could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver; indeed without a GPS receiver it would be impossible to generate pseudoranges or to determine the position of the GPS receiver whose position is the precise goal of the claims… there is no evidence here that the calculations here can be performed entirely in the human mind. Here, as described, the use of a GPS receiver is essential to the operation of the claimed methods. In conclusion, we hold that the claims at issue are properly directed to patentable subject matter as they explicitly require the use of a particular machine (a GPS receiver) and could not be performed without the use of such a receiver’.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because rejection does not read "that individual limitations can be understood as recitation of mental process" but reads 'Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: the claim recites… These limitations are substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: relationships, formulas or equations, calculations. The claimed “wherein at least the step of determining, if at least one deviation is present, results in a first non-rigid mapping”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mathematical model'.
Each of the limitations (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101… Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above), alone or in combination, amount to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The mere recitation of a generic computer components does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical concepts groupings. 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” (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two above). Applicant presents no evidence that the claim limitations explicitly require the use of a particular machine, a GPS receiver as in SIRF for example (see supra).
As to claim 15, regarding the Claim Rejections -35 USC § 101 for claiming a computer program product, Applicant provided no arguments.
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, (see page 12, 4th paragraph to page 13, last paragraph):
‘… Schweinoch discloses point correspondence registration between CAD and measurement data using segmentation and local rigid registration, but does not disclose a first non-rigid mapping that associates two geometries with a parameter set describing the deviation;
Nor does Schweinoch disclose a second non-rigid mapping used to change the model geometry based on said deviation;
The only mapping in Schweinoch relates to mapping points to a unit sphere, which does not teach or suggest the systematic compensation approach described in claim 1…’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because Examiner does not see these argued features expressed in the claims: "systematic compensation". Examiner is not allowed to bring limitations set forth in the description into the claims. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the Specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the Specification into the claims. See In re Prater7 and In re Winkhaus8, which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the Specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim. Furthermore, 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'.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 - 7:00 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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 2187
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199
3 Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (Fed. Cir. October 17, 2016)
4 Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
5 Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
6 SiRF Tech., 601 F.3d at 1331-33, 94 USPQ2d at 1616-17
7 In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969)
8 In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975)
Prosecution Insights