DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 3/11/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1, 22 and 23 are amended. Claims 2-21 are previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Response: Claim Interpretation
5. Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 3/11/26, with respect to the claim interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of claim 22 has been withdrawn.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 112
6. Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 3/11/26, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 22 has been withdrawn.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the “computer” mentioned in the amended limitation of claim 1 that states “A non-transitory storage medium for storing a program executed by a computer including a processor and used in design aiding for a three-dimensional structure” is now qualified as a “particular machine” since the amended language has the computer being used in design aiding for a three-dimensional structure. (Remarks: page 11)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the amended claim language doesn’t state that the computer is not using conventional computer functions in aiding the design of a three-dimensional structure. The computer is being viewed as an additional element, where it’s recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the limitation of claim 1 that states “obtaining specification data indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance of a to-be-designed three- dimensional structure” contains “specification data” that is technically specific data indicating a specification required for a functionality and a performance of a three-dimensional structure. The applicant argues that this limitation is distinct from general purpose data gathering. (Remarks: pages 11-12)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that even with the limitation obtaining a certain type of data, the limitation is still gathering that data for use in the claimed process. Therefore, the limitation shown in section 9 of the current office action, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
11. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the amended limitation that states “and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” cannot be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 12)
12. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that with the recent amendment, the limitation that states “and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the required specification is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
13. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the amended limitation of claim 1 that states “wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database” does not fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of an abstract idea. The applicant argues that the amended limitation provides evidence for integration into a practical application as part of the “ordered combination”. (Remarks: pages 12-13)
14. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the amended limitation that states “wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. The limitation is stating what the multi-dimensional parameter is describing a physical property of respective candidate structures. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
15. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the Iwasaki reference doesn’t teach the amended limitation of claim 1 that states “wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database”. The applicant argues that the Iwasaki reference doesn’t teach determining a “candidate structure” based on the required specification. (Remarks: pages 14-15)
16. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the amended limitation of shown in section 15 of the current office action doesn’t mention the phrase “required specification”. The limitation is referring to a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other. In paragraph [0009] of the Iwasaki reference it teaches the dimensions of the three-dimensional CAD data and the prototype three-dimensional structure are compared to determine the difference in shape. The examiner considers the prototype three-dimensional structure to be the candidate structure, since the prototype three-dimensional structure is the structure that the CAD data is being compared to. Also, the examiner considers the three-dimensional CAD data to be the multi-dimensional parameter, since the three-dimensional CAD data represents the physical three-dimensional structure.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper.
Claims 1, 22 and 23
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 22 and 23 are directed towards a medium, an apparatus and a method, which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 23
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 23 recites “wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtaining specification data indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance of a to-be-designed three- dimensional structure” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the required specification is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Further, the claim language includes the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “obtaining specification data indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance of a to-be-designed three- dimensional structure” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the required specification is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 22
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 22 recites “wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtain specification data indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance of a to-be-designed three-dimensional structure” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the required specification is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor and memory unit. The processor and memory unit are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “obtain specification data indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance of a to-be-designed three-dimensional structure” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the required specification is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and memory unit amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtaining specification data indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance of a to-be-designed three- dimensional structure” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the required specification is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of the processor that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine, see MPEP 2106.05(b) 1. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor and medium. The processor and medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “obtaining specification data indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance of a to-be-designed three- dimensional structure” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the required specification is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of the processor that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine, see MPEP 2106.05(b) 1. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein at least one of the registered candidate structures has anisotropy.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied to the respective candidate structures is registered in the database.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper, where it doesn’t explain how the describing is being conducted. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation of “wherein a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied to the respective candidate structures is registered in the database.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the parameter is describing a response or how the external force is being applied to the candidate structures. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied to the respective candidate structures in a first direction”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper, where it doesn’t explain how the describing is being conducted. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation of “wherein a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied to the respective candidate structures in a first direction” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the parameter is describing a response or how the external force is being applied to the candidate structures. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Dependent claim 4 recites “and a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied in a second direction different from the first direction are registered in the database.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper, where it doesn’t explain how the describing is being conducted. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation of “and a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied in a second direction different from the first direction are registered in the database.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the parameter is describing a response or how the external force is being applied to the candidate structures. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the required specification includes a response required when an external force is applied to the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure in each of different directions.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the functionality includes an evaluation result of evaluation for a certain user experience.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “the program further causing the processor to convert the required specification into criteria imposed on one or more physical properties”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the processor is functioning as a tool to perform the process, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the determining comprises determining a candidate structure satisfying the criteria from the database.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the required specification includes criteria imposed on one or more physical properties”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “and the determining comprises determining a candidate structure satisfying the criteria from the database.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the required specification can be specified for the entire of the to-be-designed three- dimensional structure or for respective portions thereof.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “the program further causing the processor to perform: presenting information regarding the determined one or more candidate structures”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 recites “obtaining a first operation data for selecting a first candidate structure of the presented candidate structures”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 10 recites “obtaining a first simulation result by simulating at least one of a functionality and a performance achieved by the three-dimensional structure in a case where an entire or a portion of the three-dimensional structure for which the required specification is specified is composed of the first candidate structure, in response to an acquisition of the first operation data”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 10 recites “and presenting the first simulation result.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites “the program further causing the processor to perform: obtaining second operation data for selecting a second candidate structure of the determined one or more candidate structures after the presentation of the first simulation result”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 recites “obtaining a second simulation result by simulating at least one of a functionality and a performance achieved by the three-dimensional structure in a case where an entire or a portion of the three-dimensional structure for which the required specification is specified is composed of the second candidate structure, in response to an acquisition of the second operation data”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 11 recites “and presenting the second simulation result.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein the first simulation result includes an evaluation result of a functionality based on one or more mechanical performances predicted to be achieved by the entire or the portion of the three-dimensional structure.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate what the one or more mechanical performances are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (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".
Claim 13
Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein the obtaining comprises receiving an input of the specification data”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 13 recites “and the program further causes the processor to perform presenting a simulation result of a functionality and a performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure based on the determined candidate structure.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the obtaining comprises receiving specifications required for respective portions composing the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure as the specification data”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 14 recites “and the determining comprises determining the candidate structures for the respective portions of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure based on the specification data.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 recites “wherein the obtaining comprises receiving an evaluation result regarding an experience of a user of the three-dimensional structure as the specification data”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 15 recites “and the determining comprises determining the candidate structure based on the evaluation result regarding the experience.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 16
Dependent claim 16 recites “wherein registration contents of the database include a physical parameter for a candidate structure having anisotropy”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 16 recites “the obtaining comprises receiving information regarding the anisotropy as the specification data”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 16 recites “and the presenting comprises presenting the simulation result including information indicative of the anisotropy if the candidate structure having the anisotropy is determined”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 17
Dependent claim 17 recites “wherein registration contents of the database include at least one of information of a structure having a lattice structure and information of a structure having a compliant mechanism as a candidate structure having anisotropy for deformation.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 18
Dependent claim 18 recites “wherein the presenting comprises presenting a parameter of a mechanical property of the three-dimensional structure as the simulation result of the functionality and the performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 19
Dependent claim 19 recites “wherein the presenting comprises presenting a deformation amount when an external force is applied to the three-dimensional structure as the simulation result of the functionality and the performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure so that a process of deformation is displayed visually.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 20
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the determining comprises determining the plurality of candidate structures”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 20 recites “and the presenting comprises presenting the plurality of determined candidate structures as being selectable”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 20 recites “obtaining a simulation result of the functionality and the performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure based on the selected candidate structure in response to selection of the candidate structure and presenting the obtained simulation result.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 21
Dependent claim 21 recites “wherein the determining comprises determining the plurality of candidate structures”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 21 recites “and the presenting comprises obtaining simulation results of the functionality and the performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure based on the respective candidate structures for at least two candidate structures of the plurality of determined candidate structures”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 21 recites “and presenting the obtained simulation results in a single screen in association with respective ones of the at least two candidate structures.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 1-23 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham (WO
2019/021011) (from IDS dated 3/30/22) in view of Iwasaki (JP 2004209626).
With respect to claim 1, Pham discloses “A non-transitory storage medium for storing a program executed by a computer including a processor and used in design aiding for a three-dimensional structure” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 4-7 “The apparatus 800 comprises a user interface 801 and a processing unit 802. The processing unit 802 comprises computer-readable memory 802a and one or more processors 802b capable of executing computer program instructions stored in the memory 802a.”, Pham (Pg. 10, lines 15-19, “Continuing with reference to Fig. 5, the method starts by defining a three-dimensional shape of each one of the plurality of regions within the lattice structure in step S501. Here, various arrangements of a plurality of regions are possible. For example, in some embodiments a plurality of regions may be arranged to resemble grains in a poly- crystalline structure, as in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1.”, Fig. 8)];
“obtaining specification data indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance of a to-be-designed three- dimensional structure” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 7-9 “The user interface 801 allows a user to interact with software running on the processing unit 802. For example, the user interface 801 may be embodied as a graphical user interface (GUI).”, Pham, Pg. 10 lines 21-24 “In step S501, when the lattice structure is being designed to be included in a structural component, the external boundary of the lattice structure can be defined according to the physical dimensions of the component.”, The examiner considers the external boundary of the lattice structure being defined to be the specification data that is indicative of a specification required for at least one of a functionality and a performance, since the lattice structure is being designed to be included in a structural component)];
“and determining a candidate structure based on the required specification with access to a database” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 4-7 “The apparatus 800 comprises a user interface 801 and a processing unit 802. The processing unit 802 comprises computer-readable memory 802a and one or more processors 802b capable of executing computer program instructions stored in the memory 802a.”, Pham Pg. 11, lines 2-6 “In other embodiments, instead of selecting from a predefined unit cell in step S502, the repeating strut arrangement for a region of the lattice structure may be arbitrarily defined. In some embodiments, step S502 may be omitted, for example the software may be configured to use a different default unit cell for each region.”)];
While Pham teaches determining a candidate structure based on the required specification from a database, Pham does not explicitly disclose “wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database”.
Iwasaki discloses “wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0009] “The dimensions of the three-dimensional CAD data and the prototype three-dimensional structure are compared to determine the difference in shape. Now, as shown in FIG. 3A, it is assumed that the cone height of the prototype is higher than the design dimension (CAD figure / original picture) a and is b. In the figure, the spotted portion is an excess structure portion compared to the original picture. This means that each minute thickness of the partial structure was formed thicker than expected. Therefore, the correction may be performed by setting the thickness dimension of each partial structure to a / b.”, The examiner considers the prototype three-dimensional structure to be the candidate structure, since the prototype three-dimensional structure is the structure that the CAD data is being compared to. Also, the examiner considers the three-dimensional CAD data to be the multi-dimensional parameter, since the three-dimensional CAD data represents the physical three-dimensional structure)];
Pham and Iwasaki are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the development of a three-dimensional structure.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Pham of determining a candidate structure based on the required specification from a database by incorporating wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database as taught by Iwasaki for the purpose of providing a focused electrically-charged particle beam working method for realizing the formation of a fine three-dimensional structure near a designed shape.
Pham in view of Iwasaki teaches wherein a multi-dimensional parameter describing a physical property of respective candidate structures that differ from each other in terms of at least one of a material and a structure is registered in the database.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Iwasaki teaches that by providing a focused electrically-charged particle beam working method for realizing the formation of a fine three-dimensional structure near a designed shape, the ability to reduce the effects of etching can be accomplished. This allows the ability to control the irradiation position of the electrically-charged particle beam (Iwasaki, Abstract “The three-dimensionally designed shape data of the three-dimensional structure is used to seek a plurality of a two-dimensional shape data by a differential calculus using a CAD data, the working is carried out by controlling the irradiation position of the electrically-charged particle beam based on the plurality of the two-dimensional shape data”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein at least one of the registered candidate structures has anisotropy.” as [Pham (Pg. 11, lines 11-13 “During step S503, the anisotropy of the overall lattice structure can be controlled by choosing an appropriate orientation of the lattice in each region.”)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied to the respective candidate structures is registered in the database.” as [Pham (Pg. 8 lines 17-18 “Conventional single-oriented lattice structures can suffer instability during deformation, as a result of formation of shear bands or cracks as the structure deforms.”, The examiner considers the deformation to be the external force being applied, since the shape of the lattice is being changed)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied to the respective candidate structures in a first direction and a parameter describing a response when an external force is applied in a second direction different from the first direction are registered in the database.” as [Pham (Pg. 9 lines 6-9 “As shown in Fig. 7, during deformation of the lattice structure 300 shear bands 301, 302 have formed on either side of the grain 320, but have been prevented from propagating across the full width of the lattice structure 300 due to the different strut arrangement within the grain 320.”)];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 4 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein the required specification includes a response required when an external force is applied to the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure in each of different directions.” as [Pham (Pg. 8 lines 17-18 “Conventional single-oriented lattice structures can suffer instability during deformation, as a result of formation of shear bands or cracks as the structure deforms.”, Pham (Pg. 9 lines 6-9 “As shown in Fig. 7, during deformation of the lattice structure 300 shear bands 301, 302 have formed on either side of the grain 320, but have been prevented from propagating across the full width of the lattice structure 300 due to the different strut arrangement within the grain 320.”)];
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Iwasaki further discloses “wherein the functionality includes an evaluation result of evaluation for a certain user experience.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0009] “The dimensions of the three-dimensional CAD data and the prototype three-dimensional structure are compared to determine the difference in shape. Now, as shown in FIG. 3A, it is assumed that the cone height of the prototype is higher than the design dimension (CAD figure / original picture) a and is b. In the figure, the spotted portion is an excess structure portion compared to the original picture. This means that each minute thickness of the partial structure was formed thicker than expected. Therefore, the correction may be performed by setting the thickness dimension of each partial structure to a / b.”, The examiner notes that making corrections demonstrates that the results are being evaluated)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Iwasaki further discloses “the program further causing the processor to convert the required specification into criteria imposed on one or more physical properties” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0007] “First, it is necessary to obtain three-dimensional shape data of a template of a microstructure to be manufactured. In this case, if there is already a standard structure, an image of the standard structure may be used as a template, but generally, design values of the shape and dimensions of the structure to be produced, for example, CAD data as shown in the figure are used. Next, a processing method to be performed to produce a structure having the dimensions (original image in the drawing) is determined.”)];
“wherein the determining comprises determining a candidate structure satisfying the criteria from the database.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0007] “At this stage, the dimensions of the prototype and the template are compared to obtain difference data. The cause of the difference is investigated and analyzed from the difference data, and the necessary processing data for correcting the difference is corrected and reset.”, Iwasaki (paragraph [0017] “The structure is made, the shape of the prototype structure is compared with the design shape, and the main processing is performed while correcting the processing conditions so as to correct the difference.”)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Iwasaki further discloses “wherein the required specification includes criteria imposed on one or more physical properties” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0007] “First, it is necessary to obtain three-dimensional shape data of a template of a microstructure to be manufactured. In this case, if there is already a standard structure, an image of the standard structure may be used as a template, but generally, design values of the shape and dimensions of the structure to be produced, for example, CAD data as shown in the figure are used. Next, a processing method to be performed to produce a structure having the dimensions (original image in the drawing) is determined.”)];
“and the determining comprises determining a candidate structure satisfying the criteria from the database.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0007] “At this stage, the dimensions of the prototype and the template are compared to obtain difference data. The cause of the difference is investigated and analyzed from the difference data, and the necessary processing data for correcting the difference is corrected and reset.”, Iwasaki (paragraph [0017] “The structure is made, the shape of the prototype structure is compared with the design shape, and the main processing is performed while correcting the processing conditions so as to correct the difference.”)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Iwasaki further discloses “wherein the required specification can be specified for the entire of the to-be-designed three- dimensional structure or for respective portions thereof.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0018] “According to the method for manufacturing a three-dimensional microstructure of the present invention, a plurality of characteristic data indicating a relationship between a processing area and a deposit is acquired in advance, and as a processing condition for a charged particle beam, (1) beam scanning is performed according to a decrease in the deposit.”)];
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Iwasaki further discloses “presenting information regarding the determined one or more candidate structures” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12.”)];
“obtaining a first simulation result by simulating at least one of a functionality and a performance achieved by the three-dimensional structure in a case where an entire or a portion of the three-dimensional structure for which the required specification is specified is composed of the first candidate structure, in response to an acquisition of the first operation data” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10. At this time, it is assumed that the template shown in the CAD information is a conical structure as shown in FIG. 2A, for example. In order to manufacture such a structure, in this example, a deposition formation mode by CVD is selected,”)];
“and presenting the first simulation result.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12. The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10.”)];
Pham discloses “obtaining a first operation data for selecting a first candidate structure of the presented candidate structures” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 7-9 “The user interface 801 allows a user to interact with software running on the processing unit 802. For example, the user interface 801 may be embodied as a graphical user interface (GUI).”, Pham Pg. 10 lines 15-21 “Continuing with reference to Fig. 5, the method starts by defining a three-dimensional shape of each one of the plurality of regions within the lattice structure in step S501. Here, various arrangements of a plurality of regions are possible. For example, in some embodiments a plurality of regions may be arranged to resemble grains in a poly- crystalline structure, as in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1. In other embodiments a plurality of regions may be arranged to resemble different types of microstructure, for example a plurality of precipitates surrounded by a matrix.”)];
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Pham further discloses “obtaining second operation data for selecting a second candidate structure of the determined one or more candidate structures after the presentation of the first simulation result” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 7-9 “The user interface 801 allows a user to interact with software running on the processing unit 802. For example, the user interface 801 may be embodied as a graphical user interface (GUI).”, Pham Pg. 10 lines 15-21 “Continuing with reference to Fig. 5, the method starts by defining a three-dimensional shape of each one of the plurality of regions within the lattice structure in step S501. Here, various arrangements of a plurality of regions are possible. For example, in some embodiments a plurality of regions may be arranged to resemble grains in a poly- crystalline structure, as in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1. In other embodiments a plurality of regions may be arranged to resemble different types of microstructure, for example a plurality of precipitates surrounded by a matrix.”)];
Iwasaki discloses “obtaining a second simulation result by simulating at least one of a functionality and a performance achieved by the three-dimensional structure in a case where an entire or a portion of the three-dimensional structure for which the required specification is specified is composed of the second candidate structure, in response to an acquisition of the second operation data” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10. At this time, it is assumed that the template shown in the CAD information is a conical structure as shown in FIG. 2A, for example. In order to manufacture such a structure, in this example, a deposition formation mode by CVD is selected,”)];
“and presenting the second simulation result.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12. The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10.”)];
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Iwasaki further discloses “wherein the first simulation result includes an evaluation result of a functionality based on one or more mechanical performances predicted to be achieved by the entire or the portion of the three-dimensional structure.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0009] “The dimensions of the three-dimensional CAD data and the prototype three-dimensional structure are compared to determine the difference in shape. Now, as shown in FIG. 3A, it is assumed that the cone height of the prototype is higher than the design dimension (CAD figure / original picture) a and is b. In the figure, the spotted portion is an excess structure portion compared to the original picture. This means that each minute thickness of the partial structure was formed thicker than expected. Therefore, the correction may be performed by setting the thickness dimension of each partial structure to a / b.”, The examiner notes that making corrections demonstrates that the results are being evaluated)];
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 1 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein the obtaining comprises receiving an input of the specification data” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 7-9 “The user interface 801 allows a user to interact with software running on the processing unit 802. For example, the user interface 801 may be embodied as a graphical user interface (GUI).”)];
Iwasaki discloses “and the program further causes the processor to perform presenting a simulation result of a functionality and a performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure based on the determined candidate structure.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12. The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10.”)];
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 13 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein the obtaining comprises receiving specifications required for respective portions composing the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure as the specification data” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 7-9 “The user interface 801 allows a user to interact with software running on the processing unit 802. For example, the user interface 801 may be embodied as a graphical user interface (GUI).The steps in the flowchart shown in Fig. 5 maybe carried out in software, by means of suitable computer program instructions stored in the memory 802a. In the present embodiment the apparatus 800 is configured to communicate with a 3D printer 810 in order to control the 3D printer 810 to manufacture the resulting lattice structure.”)];
“and the determining comprises determining the candidate structures for the respective portions of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure based on the specification data.” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 9-16 “The steps in the flowchart shown in Fig. 5 maybe carried out in software, by means of suitable computer program instructions stored in the memory 802a. In the present embodiment the apparatus 800 is configured to communicate with a 3D printer 810 in order to control the 3D printer 810 to manufacture the resulting lattice structure. Continuing with reference to Fig. 5, the method starts by defining a three-dimensional shape of each one of the plurality of regions within the lattice structure in step S501.”)];
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 13 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein the obtaining comprises receiving an evaluation result regarding an experience of a user of the three-dimensional structure as the specification data” as [Pham (Pg. 11, lines 2-6 “In other embodiments, instead of selecting from a predefined unit cell in step S502, the repeating strut arrangement for a region of the lattice structure may be arbitrarily defined. In some embodiments, step S502 may be omitted, for example the software may be configured to use a different default unit cell for each region.”)];
“and the determining comprises determining the candidate structure based on the evaluation result regarding the experience.” as [Pham (Pg. 11, lines 8-9 “Then, in step S503 the structure is generated by infilling each region with the selected repeating strut arrangement.”)];
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 13 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein registration contents of the database include a physical parameter for a candidate structure having anisotropy” as [Pham (Pg. 11, lines 11-13 “During step S503, the anisotropy of the overall lattice structure can be controlled by choosing an appropriate orientation of the lattice in each region.”)];
“the obtaining comprises receiving information regarding the anisotropy as the specification data” as [Pham (Pg. 11, lines 11-13 “During step S503, the anisotropy of the overall lattice structure can be controlled by choosing an appropriate orientation of the lattice in each region.”)];
Iwasaki discloses “and the presenting comprises presenting the simulation result including information indicative of the anisotropy if the candidate structure having the anisotropy is determined.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12. The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10.”)];
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 16 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein registration contents of the database include at least one of information of a structure having a lattice structure and information of a structure having a compliant mechanism as a candidate structure having anisotropy for deformation.” as [Pham (Pg. 11, lines 11-13 “During step S503, the anisotropy of the overall lattice structure can be controlled by choosing an appropriate orientation of the lattice in each region.”, Pham (Pg. 8 lines 17-18 “Conventional single-oriented lattice structures can suffer instability during deformation, as a result of formation of shear bands or cracks as the structure deforms.” )];
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 13 above, and Iwasaki further discloses “wherein the presenting comprises presenting a parameter of a mechanical property of the three-dimensional structure as the simulation result of the functionality and the performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12. The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10.”)];
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 13 above, and Pham further discloses “when an external force is applied to the three-dimensional structure as the simulation result of the functionality and the performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure so that a process of deformation is displayed visually.” as [Pham (Pg. 9 lines 6-9 “As shown in Fig. 7, during deformation of the lattice structure 300 shear bands 301, 302 have formed on either side of the grain 320, but have been prevented from propagating across the full width of the lattice structure 300 due to the different strut arrangement within the grain 320.”)];
Iwasaki discloses “presenting a deformation amount” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12. The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10.”)];
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 13 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein the determining comprises determining the plurality of candidate structures” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 7-9 “The user interface 801 allows a user to interact with software running on the processing unit 802. For example, the user interface 801 may be embodied as a graphical user interface (GUI).”)];
Iwasaki discloses “and the presenting comprises presenting the plurality of determined candidate structures as being selectable, obtaining a simulation result of the functionality and the performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure based onthe selected candidate structure in response to selection of the candidate structure and presenting the obtained simulation result.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12. The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10.”)];
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Pham and Iwasaki discloses the medium of claim 13 above, and Pham further discloses “wherein the determining comprises determining the plurality of candidate structures” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 7-9 “The user interface 801 allows a user to interact with software running on the processing unit 802. For example, the user interface 801 may be embodied as a graphical user interface (GUI).”)];
Iwasaki discloses “and the presenting comprises obtaining simulation results of the functionality and the performance of the to-be-designed three-dimensional structure based on the respective candidate structures for at least two candidate structures of the plurality of determined candidate structures and presenting the obtained simulation results in a single screen in association with respective ones of the at least two candidate structures.” as [Iwasaki (paragraph [0008] “This system comprises an ion source 1, an ion optical system 3, a deflector 4, a secondary charged particle detector 5, a gas gun 6, and a FIB apparatus body comprising a sample stage 7 having a five-axis driving mechanism, a scanning electron microscope tube 8, It comprises a FIB device body, a computer 10 for generating and transmitting control signals for the scanning electron microscope, a display 11, and a CAD system 12. The CAD system 12 performs an operation of converting the dimensional information of the fine three-dimensional structure to be manufactured into a large number of two-dimensional shapes, and sends the converted data to the computer 10.”)];
With respect to claim 22, Pham discloses “A design aid apparatus for a three-dimensional structure, comprising: a control unit; and a memory unit” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 4-7 “The apparatus 800 comprises a user interface 801 and a processing unit 802. The processing unit 802 comprises computer-readable memory 802a and one or more processors 802b capable of executing computer program instructions stored in the memory 802a.”, Pham (Pg. 10, lines 15-19, “Continuing with reference to Fig. 5, the method starts by defining a three-dimensional shape of each one of the plurality of regions within the lattice structure in step S501. Here, various arrangements of a plurality of regions are possible. For example, in some embodiments a plurality of regions may be arranged to resemble grains in a poly- crystalline structure, as in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1.”, Fig. 8)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations of claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 23, Pham discloses “A computer-implemented design aid method for a three-dimensional structure” as [Pham (Pg. 10, lines 26-29 “Each region may, for example, be designed to have a Voronoi polyhedral shape similar to the morphology of intrinsic crystal grains. Polyhedral cells can be generated using any suitable software program, for example Neper or other suitable computer-aided design (CAD) programs.”, Pham (Pg. 10, lines 15-19, “Continuing with reference to Fig. 5, the method starts by defining a three-dimensional shape of each one of the plurality of regions within the lattice structure in step S501. Here, various arrangements of a plurality of regions are possible. For example, in some embodiments a plurality of regions may be arranged to resemble grains in a poly- crystalline structure, as in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1.”, Fig. 8)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations of claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights