DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on January 24, 2024.
Rejection of claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galvez in view of Boada.
Rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-6, 9, 15-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galvez in view of Boada and further in view of Vella.
Rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious Galvez in view of Boada, Vella, and further in view of Fisher.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 3, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, it is unclear how an “Generalized Abeille Tile” is defined. The Specification does not give an explicit definition apart from providing figures as illustrations of types of Abeille Tiles. Accordingly, the term is indefinite. Further, the term does not appear to have been a term of art as of the effective filing date of the application. Accordingly, the limitation is not given patentable weight in analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, it is unclear how a “Delaunay Loft” is defined. The Specification does not give an explicit definition apart from providing figures as illustrations of types of Abeille Tiles. Accordingly, the term is indefinite. Further, the term does not appear to have been a term of art as of the effective filing date of the application. Accordingly, the limitation is not given patentable weight in analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Further, regarding claim 17, based on the Disclosure, it appears that a “wallpaper symmetry” and a “weave symmetry,” as recited in claim 16, are distinct symmetries. Further, a “Delaunay Loft” appears to be distinct from a “Generalized Abeille Tile.” However, claim 17 depends from claim 16, thereby claiming a space-filling solid that has all four of these features. Thus, claim 17 is unclear. For the purposes of examination and based on the context of claims 5 and 6, Examiner is assuming that claim 17 should depend from claim 15 and not from claim 16. Correction is required. If this interpretation is incorrect and Applicant intended for the present claims to reflect the intended dependency, clarification by the Applicant as to where in the Specification the claimed solid is disclosed 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A method for creating a space-filling solid model, the method comprising:(a) defining a three-dimensional (3D) domain;
(b) defining a Voronoi site geometry for each of a plurality of Voronoi sites;
(c) defining a spatial arrangement of the plurality of Voronoi sites;
(d) arranging the plurality of Voronoi sites within the 3D domain according to the defined spatial arrangement; and
(e) partitioning the 3D domain based on the Voronoi site geometry of each the plurality of Voronoi sites defined in (b) and the spatial arrangement of the plurality of Voronoi sites defined in (c) using a distance function to create the space-filling solid model.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a domain can include a user entering coordinates into a computer program that is configured to performed three dimensional graphical functions, such as a CAD program. Thus, the limitation is a mental process that can be performed with the aid of a computer. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III(C).
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Defining a site geometry can include a human, with pencil and paper, sketching a figure that represents a Voronoi site. Because the claim is not limited to a three-dimensional Voronoi site geometry, this is a mental process that can be performed by a human. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
A spatial arrangement can be defined by coordinates, either in two or three dimensions. Thus, a human can input coordinates to indicate a location and orientation of a Voronoi site. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Arranging sites can be performed by a human with the aid of a computer. For example, a human can utilize a CAD program to graphical arrange the sites as desired. Further, the arrangement can include arranging in a manner that places the sites in a plane, which can be performed using pencil and paper. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
The process of partitioning using a distance function is a mathematical concept that includes determining distances between sites and selecting boundaries of the partitions based on the function. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite only abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements that may integrate the claim into a practical application and/or improve the functioning of a computer. Accordingly, analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 is unnecessary.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The claim 1 limitations recite only abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements that may integrate the claim into a practical application and/or improve the functioning of a computer.
If the claim were amended to include one or more additional elements and/or if the Voronoi site geometry were claimed as three-dimensional, one or more of the limitations may not fall under Step 1, Prong 1 as abstract ideas. For example, one or more of the mental processes would no longer be categorized as such if required to be performed in three dimensions.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites wherein the space-filling solid model comprises a plurality of repeating parts in a plurality of orientations, wherein each part is formed from one Voronoi site of the plurality of Voronoi sites. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the spatial arrangement comprises a weave symmetry and the plurality of repeating parts are geometrically locked. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the Voronoi site geometry comprises a weave line. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the spatial arrangement comprises a weave symmetry and the plurality of repeating parts are topologically locked, and wherein the plurality of repeating parts comprise Generalized Abeille Tiles. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein the spatial arrangement comprises a wallpaper symmetry and the plurality of repeating parts are topologically locked, and wherein the plurality of repeating parts comprise Delaunay Lofts. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein (e) comprises:
(e1) dividing the 3D domain into a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) stacked layers;
The step is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper. For example, because the claim recites dividing into a plurality of layers, a human, using pencil and paper, can divide the domain into two layers using a pencil and paper. Further, with the use of a generic computer and program, such as a CAD program, a user can select layers of a 3D rendered object. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
(e2) partitioning each of the 2D stacked layers based on the defined Voronoi site geometry of the plurality of Voronoi sites using the distance function; and
The process of partitioning using a distance function is a mathematical concept that includes determining distances between sites and selecting boundaries of the partitions based on the function. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
(e3) interpolating, layer-by-layer, the partitioned 2D stacked layers to create the space-filling solid model.
The limitation can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and/or a generic computer. Alternatively, the limitation involves mathematical concepts that connect common points together to form a solid.
Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
A method for creating a space-filling solid model, comprising:
defining a three-dimensional (3D) domain;
Defining a domain can include a user entering coordinates into a computer program that is configured to performed three dimensional graphical functions, such as a CAD program. Thus, the limitation is a mental process that can be performed with the aid of a computer. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III(C).
defining a Voronoi site geometry for each of a plurality of Voronoi sites;
Defining a site geometry can include a human, with pencil and paper, sketching a figure that represents a Voronoi site. Because the claim is not limited to a three-dimensional Voronoi site geometry, this is a mental process that can be performed by a human. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
arranging the plurality of Voronoi sites within the 3D domain;
Arranging sites can be performed by a human with the aid of a computer. For example, a human can utilize a CAD program to graphical arrange the sites as desired. Further, the arrangement can include arranging in a manner that places the sites in a plane, which can be performed using pencil and paper. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
dividing the 3D domain into a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) stacked layers;
The step is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper. For example, because the claim recites dividing into a plurality of layers, a human, using pencil and paper, can divide the domain into two layers using a pencil and paper. Further, with the use of a generic computer and program, such as a CAD program, a user can select layers of a 3D rendered object. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
(e) partitioning each of the 2D stacked layers based on the Voronoi site geometry of each of the plurality of Voronoi sites defined in (b) using a distance function; and
(f) interpolating, layer-by-layer, the partitioned 2D stacked layers to create the space-filling solid model.
The process of partitioning using a distance function is a mathematical concept that includes determining distances between sites and selecting boundaries of the partitions based on the function. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites wherein the space-filling solid model comprises a plurality of repeating parts in a plurality of orientations, wherein each part is formed from one Voronoi site of the plurality of Voronoi sites. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites wherein the plurality of repeating parts comprise woven threads that are geometrically interlocked. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 11
Claim 10 recites wherein each of the woven threads comprises a plurality of separable sub-tiles. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 12
Claim 10 recites wherein each of the plurality of separable sub-tiles is hollow, wherein each of the plurality of separable sub-tiles comprises a connector located at an end thereof and a port, and wherein the plurality of separable sub-tiles are connected end-to-end to form the woven thread. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 13
Claim 10 recites wherein the space-filling solid model comprises a connector and the plurality of repeating parts are geometrically interlocked. The limitation is directed to further specifications of a step that has been characterized as an abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical idea and/or improve the functioning of a computer or other field of endeavor.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 14-18 and 20
Claims 14-18 recite a non-transitory machine-readable medium that performs a method that is substantially the same as the method of claims 1-13. The limitation of “non-transitory machine-readable medium” is the additional element of generic computer components, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claims 1-13, claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites: wherein, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to define at least one of the three-dimensional (3D) domain, the Voronoi site geometry, and the spatial arrangement of the plurality of Voronoi sites based on a desired behavior of the space- filling solid model inputted by a user.
Defining a domain, site geometry, and/or spatial arrangement can be performed by a human with pencil and paper by selecting one or more of the parameters and entering the selections into a program executing on a generic computer. Thus, this is a mental process that can be performed by a human. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gomez-Galvez, et al., (“Scutoids are a geometrical solution to three-dimensional packing of epithelia,” hereinafter “Galvez”) in view of Boada, et al., (“Approximations of 3D Generalized Voronoi Diagrams,” hereinafter “Boada”).
Claim 1
Galvez discloses:
A method for creating a space-filling solid model, the method comprising:
A mathematical model for curved epithelia uncovers a novel geometrical solid. a Scheme representing planar columnar/cubic monolayer epithelia. Cells are simplified as prisms. b Scheme illustrating an invagination or fold in a columnar/cubic monolayer epithelium. Cells adopt the called “bottle shape” that would be simplified as frusta. c Mathematical model for an epithelial tube. A Voronoi diagram is drawn on the surface of a cylinder (representing the apical surface of the epithelial tube). Galvez at description of FIG. 1.
“Columnar/cubic monolayer epithelia” are “space-filling.”
(a) defining a three-dimensional (3D) domain;
To investigate whether 3D packing in curved epithelia could be simply explained by prismatic cells adopting a frusta-like shape (Fig. 1a, b), we computed a cylindrical epithelium that mimics the architecture of epithelial tubes and glands (Methods section, Fig. 1c). Galvez at pg. 2, col. 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The “domain” is the hollow cylinder illustrated in Fig. 1c.
(b) defining a Voronoi site geometry for each of a plurality of Voronoi sites;
These are the detailed steps for the method: (a) We randomly located a finite number of seeds (40, 80, 200, 400, and 800) in a defined Euclidean space (512 × 4096 pixels) for 20 different images. Galvez at pg. 11, col. 2.
The “finite number of seeds” are analogous to the site geometries.
(c) defining a spatial arrangement of the plurality of Voronoi sites;
We defined every seed starting in a point on the apical surface. That point defined a segment between the basal and the apical surfaces by means of its normal (given the point X(u,v), the segment is X(u,v) + λN(u,v), λ∈ [0,1]). The intersection of these line segments with a given surface determined a seed. Galvez at pg. 10, col. 2.
The “spatial arrangement” is analogous to the location of the seeds.
(d) arranging the plurality of Voronoi sites within the 3D domain according to the defined spatial arrangement; and
Thus, in order to generate all the seeds, in a first step we have chosen n points on the apical surface, then the n segments that were generated by them, and, finally, the intersection of those segments with every surface Sλ defined the seeds for that surface. Galvez at pg. 10, col. 2.
Galvez does not appear to disclose:
(e) partitioning the
Boada, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
(e) partitioning the
Given a set of primitives, called Voronoi sites, the generalized Voronoi diagram partitions the space into regions, one per site, such that all points in a region have the same closest site according to some given distance function. Boada at pg. 163, col. 1.
Boada is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to 3-dimensional Voronoi solids. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a distance function, as disclosed by Boada, to generate the solids disclosed by Galvez. Motivation to combine includes utilizing a known method of generating Voronoi diagrams and extending the method to 3 dimensions, thus allowing for versatility in the type of solids that are generated depending on the desired requirements for the resulting solids. Thus, as opposed to the limited usage of the solids disclosed in Galvez (i.e., to model cells), using a more generalized distance function, as disclosed in Boada, allows for additional applications of the method.
Claim 7
Galvez discloses:
wherein (e) comprises: (e1) dividing the 3D domain into a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) stacked layers;
To investigate whether 3D packing in curved epithelia could be simply explained by prismatic cells adopting a frusta-like shape (Fig. 1a, b), we computed a cylindrical epithelium that mimics the architecture of epithelial tubes and glands (Methods section, Fig. 1c). Galvez at pg. 2, col. 2.
As illustrated in FIG. 1c (see above), the 3-dimensional domain has two layers, one on the outside of the tube and one on the inside of the tube.
(e3) interpolating, layer-by-layer, the partitioned 2D stacked layers to create the space-filling solid model.
The next step was to compute the Voronoi diagrams of the seeds obtained in each one of the parallel surfaces. We linked the Voronoi regions corresponding to seeds on the same segment obtaining a 3D figure. Galvez at pg. 10, col. 2.
The layers that are illustrated in Fig. 1c are connected to form 3-dimensional blocks. See, e.g., FIG. 1a and 1b:
PNG
media_image2.png
135
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Boada discloses:
(e2) partitioning each of the 2D stacked layers based on the defined Voronoi site geometry of the plurality of Voronoi sites using the distance function; and
Given a set of primitives, called Voronoi sites, the generalized Voronoi diagram partitions the space into regions, one per site, such that all points in a region have the same closest site according to some given distance function. Boada at pg. 163, col. 1.
Claim 8
Galvez discloses:
A method for creating a space-filling solid model, comprising:
A mathematical model for curved epithelia uncovers a novel geometrical solid. a Scheme representing planar columnar/cubic monolayer epithelia. Cells are simplified as prisms. b Scheme illustrating an invagination or fold in a columnar/cubic monolayer epithelium. Cells adopt the called “bottle shape” that would be simplified as frusta. c Mathematical model for an epithelial tube. A Voronoi diagram is drawn on the surface of a cylinder (representing the apical surface of the epithelial tube). Galvez at description of FIG. 1.
(a) defining a three-dimensional (3D) domain;
To investigate whether 3D packing in curved epithelia could be simply explained by prismatic cells adopting a frusta-like shape (Fig. 1a, b), we computed a cylindrical epithelium that mimics the architecture of epithelial tubes and glands (Methods section, Fig. 1c). Galvez at pg. 2, col. 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) defining a Voronoi site geometry for each of a plurality of Voronoi sites;
These are the detailed steps for the method: (a) We randomly located a finite number of seeds (40, 80, 200, 400, and 800) in a defined Euclidean space (512 × 4096 pixels) for 20 different images. Galvez at pg. 11, col. 2.
(c) arranging the plurality of Voronoi sites within the 3D domain;
Thus, in order to generate all the seeds, in a first step we have chosen n points on the apical surface, then the n segments that were generated by them, and, finally, the intersection of those segments with every surface Sλ defined the seeds for that surface. Galvez at pg. 10, col. 2.
(d) dividing the 3D domain into a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) stacked layers;
To investigate whether 3D packing in curved epithelia could be simply explained by prismatic cells adopting a frusta-like shape (Fig. 1a, b), we computed a cylindrical epithelium that mimics the architecture of epithelial tubes and glands (Methods section, Fig. 1c). Galvez at pg. 2, col. 2.
As illustrated in FIG. 1c (see above), the 3-dimensional domain has two layers, one on the outside of the tube and one on the inside of the tube.
(f) interpolating, layer-by-layer, the partitioned 2D stacked layers to create the space-filling solid model.
The next step was to compute the Voronoi diagrams of the seeds obtained in each one of the parallel surfaces. We linked the Voronoi regions corresponding to seeds on the same segment obtaining a 3D figure. Galvez at pg. 10, col. 2.
See, e.g., FIG. 1a and 1b:
PNG
media_image2.png
135
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Boada discloses:
(e2) partitioning each of the 2D stacked layers based on the defined Voronoi site geometry of the plurality of Voronoi sites using the distance function; and
Given a set of primitives, called Voronoi sites, the generalized Voronoi diagram partitions the space into regions, one per site, such that all points in a region have the same closest site according to some given distance function. Boada at pg. 163, col. 1.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as at least claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 19
Galvez discloses:
wherein, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to define at least one of the three-dimensional (3D) domain, the Voronoi site geometry, and the spatial arrangement of the plurality of Voronoi sites based on a desired behavior of the space- filling solid model inputted by a user.
To investigate whether 3D packing in curved epithelia could be simply explained by prismatic cells adopting a frusta-like shape (Fig. 1a, b), we computed a cylindrical epithelium that mimics the architecture of epithelial tubes and glands (Methods section, Fig. 1c). Galvez at pg. 2, col. 2.
First, we generated a Voronoi diagram on the inner surface (apical). Then, the seed of each Voronoi cell was projected to the closest point on the surface of an outer cylinder (basal) generating a second Voronoi diagram in the basal surface of the tube. Galvez at pg. 2, col. 2.
Claims 2, 3, 5-6, 9, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galvez in view of Boada and further in view of Vella, et al., (“Geometric Versatility of Abeille Vault,” hereinafter “Vella”).
Claim 2
Galvez and Boada do not appear to disclose:
wherein the space-filling solid model comprises a plurality of repeating parts in a plurality of orientations, wherein each part is formed from one Voronoi site of the plurality of Voronoi sites.
Vella, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
wherein the space-filling solid model comprises a plurality of repeating parts in a plurality of orientations, wherein each part is formed from one Voronoi site of the plurality of Voronoi sites.
Looking at the examples shown, it can be concluded that for defining the interlocking ashlar geometry, it is enough to consider the alternation only along the parameter of the grid field i.e. an 'inward' rotation has its identical, corresponding 'outward' rotation on the other side of the same ashlar. Vella at pg. 395, col. 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
231
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Vella is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to three-dimensional tilings. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Galvez with Vella to produce Abeille tilings that are also Voronoi solids. Motivation to combine includes allowing for space-filling solids using software to produce tilings for applications in which strong, interlocking blocks improve structural integrity.
Claim 3
Vella discloses:
wherein the spatial arrangement comprises a weave symmetry and the plurality of repeating parts are geometrically locked.
Looking at the examples shown, it can be concluded that for defining the interlocking ashlar geometry, it is enough to consider the alternation only along the parameter of the grid field i.e. an 'inward' rotation has its identical, corresponding 'outward' rotation on the other side of the same ashlar. Vella at pg. 395, col. 1.
Claim 5
Vella discloses:
wherein the spatial arrangement comprises a weave symmetry and the plurality of repeating parts are topologically locked, and wherein the plurality of repeating parts comprise Generalized Abeille Tiles.
The Abeille-based TIA geometric construction method is, thus, based on the four main variables: the point grid distribution of the initial surface, curvature of the initial surface in U and V directions, angle of plane rotation, and the position of the trimming planes. Through establishing the interdependences between the variables the construction method is further parametrized, and the interlocking properties assessed. Vella at pg. 393, col. 2.
FIG. 2f illustrates an arrangement of Abeille blocks that are arranged in a pattern that resembles a “weave symmetry” (i.e., blocks alternate in orientation).
PNG
media_image4.png
169
223
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 6
Vella discloses:
wherein the spatial arrangement comprises a wallpaper symmetry and the plurality of repeating parts are topologically locked, and wherein the plurality of repeating parts comprise Delaunay Lofts.
The osteomorphic block is based on the same concept of Truchet's alternating concave and convex surfaces, with the difference that the alternation is developed along the same ashlar face (Figure 7). The interlocking is achieved only along one axes and since the system was invented for a wall and column construction, ostemorphic block is not based on a grid, but a running bond. Vella at 395, col. 1.
See also Figure 6.
PNG
media_image5.png
178
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
209
350
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 9
Galzev discloses:
wherein each part is formed from one Voronoi site of the plurality of Voronoi sites.
The next step was to compute the Voronoi diagrams of the seeds obtained in each one of the parallel surfaces. We linked the Voronoi regions corresponding to seeds on the same segment obtaining a 3D figure. Galvez at pg. 10, col. 2.
Vella discloses:
wherein the space-filling solid model comprises a plurality of repeating parts in a plurality of orientations,
From the construction sequence shown above, it is clear that the interlocking mechanism is a system based not so much on precise geometry of the intersection surface of two adjacent ashlars but rather on the orientation alternation of the intersection surface along the ashlar. Vella at pg. 394, col. 2.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as at least claim 2. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 16
Vella discloses:
wherein the spatial arrangement comprises a weave symmetry and the plurality of repeating parts are topologically locked, and wherein the plurality of repeating parts comprise Generalized Abeille Tiles.
The Abeille-based TIA geometric construction method is, thus, based on the four main variables: the point grid distribution of the initial surface, curvature of the initial surface in U and V directions, angle of plane rotation, and the position of the trimming planes. Through establishing the interdependences between the variables the construction method is further parametrized, and the interlocking properties assessed. Vella at pg. 393, col. 2.
FIG. 2f illustrates an arrangement of Abeille blocks that are arranged in a pattern that resembles a “weave symmetry” (i.e., blocks alternate in orientation).
PNG
media_image4.png
169
223
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 17
Vella discloses:
wherein the spatial arrangement comprises a wallpaper symmetry and the plurality of repeating parts are topologically locked, and
Looking at the examples shown, it can be concluded that for defining the interlocking ashlar geometry, it is enough to consider the alternation only along the parameter of the grid field i.e. an 'inward' rotation has its identical, corresponding 'outward' rotation on the other side of the same ashlar. Vella at pg. 395, col. 1.
wherein the plurality of repeating parts comprise Delaunay Lofts.
The osteomorphic block is based on the same concept of Truchet's alternating concave and convex surfaces, with the difference that the alternation is developed along the same ashlar face (Figure 7). The interlocking is achieved only along one axes and since the system was invented for a wall and column construction, ostemorphic block is not based on a grid, but a running bond. Vella at 395, col. 1.
See also Figure 6.
PNG
media_image5.png
178
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
209
350
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as at least claim 8. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious Galvez in view of Boada, Vella, and further in view of Fisher, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,309,716, hereinafter “Fisher”).
Claim 13
Vella discloses:
the plurality of repeating parts are geometrically interlocked.
Looking at the examples shown, it can be concluded that for defining the interlocking ashlar geometry, it is enough to consider the alternation only along the parameter of the grid field i.e. an 'inward' rotation has its identical, corresponding 'outward' rotation on the other side of the same ashlar. Vella at pg. 395, col. 1.
Fisher, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
wherein the space-filling solid model comprises a connector and
However, in some variants, some or all of the elements need not be straight sided. They may be arcuate, or have arcuate portions, or have protrusions, recesses, or other configurations enabling connection of adjacent elements (i.e. an interlocking pattern). Thus, jigsaw puzzle type shapes can be created, or indeed zig-zag patterns that would define only certain combinations of adjacent side (e.g. for a card game). Fisher at col. 5, lines 30-35.
Fisher is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to generating interlocking geometric shapes. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the connectors of Fisher to the 3-dimensional tiles of Galvez and Vella to result in 3-dimensional tiles that include protrusions and recesses to allow the blocks to be connected into larger structures. Motivation to combine includes improving the practicality of the resulting solids by adding mechanisms to allow the blocks to be connected when manufactured, thus allowing for increased utility in application of the solids in constructing objects.
Examiner’s Note
As previously asserted, claims 4, 10-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, none of the prior art appears to disclose one or more limitations present in those claims. For example, the prior art does not appear to disclose a 3-dimensional Voronoi site geometry that would suggest a “weave line” as illustrated in FIG. 22 of the Specification, or “repeating parts” in the arrangement of “woven threads.” Accordingly, if the claims were amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and if all of the limitations of one or more of claims 4, 10-12, and/or 18 and any intervening claims were incorporated into the independent claims, the resulting amended claims would include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188