DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 17/790,689 and an Office action on the merits follows. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claim(s) 1-5, as identified in the supplemental response/reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s traversal is on the ground(s) that the method (Group 1) and information processing device (processor and memory combination) for the execution thereof (Group 2) are obvious variants sharing the same special technical featur e as required for Unity of invention (see MPEP 1850 II. Determination of “Unity of Invention” , and 37 CFR 1.475(b)(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out said process ). No claims are directed to any implant/prosthesis per se , and accordingly no claims are understood to read on any of the purported ly non-obvious Species of Figures 3 and 4 . Applicant’s argument is found persuasive, and the Restriction Requirement is withdrawn. All of pending claim(s) 1-10 are being considered on the merits. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant’s Specification as filed, [005 0 ], [0054], and [005 8 ] in particular feature blurred instances of text that has resulted in inaccuracies in the corresponding PGPUB US 2023/0320859 A1. Due to the blurred text, the inaccuracies identified include those subscripts for R and L reading “ Lattier ”, “ Gorder ” and “Gender”, in addition to subscript “ N,Y ,Z” instead of X,Y,Z describing distances D at e.g. [005 1 ] , [0055] and [0059] respectively in the publication . These problematic blurred portions from the Specification as filed are reproduced below to illustrate: Examiner requests a clean/clear amended form of these portions of the Specification so as to eliminate any inaccuracies in any subsequent publication . Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim(s) 3 -5 and 8 -10 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. Claim(s) 3/8 recite(s) the limitation "among the plurality of keypoints generated in step S21" at approx. line 7 and “in the structural diagram of the line segments generated in step S22” at approx. lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim(s) because at no point in intervening claim(s) 2/7 and/or independent claim(s) 1/6 are those steps/limitations established. Similarly, at step S312 “the generated key points” lacks the required/proper antecedent basis, nor does S311 serve to establish basis for the generated key points, but instead a subset thereof (those selected ) . Claim language recited fails to necessarily establish ‘key points’ as directly corresponding to the ‘sampling points ’, nor does Examiner draw any assumptions regarding Applicant’s intent in this regard . The corresponding prior-art based rejections are raised in an effort to present pertinent/relevant disclosure for the claims as best understood, in the interest of compact prosecution. Claim(s) 4/ 9 recite(s) the limitation at S332 and S333 which are unclear for the reasons identified below. S332 requires assigning an initial value of + ∞ to distances of sampling points however it is not clear what said distances are between, what affect if any such an assignment has on said sampling points, and/or how increasing those distance values by infinity/indefinitely, may serve to exclude and/or incorporate those that might otherwise “ possibly contribute to the shortest distances of the sampling points generated in S3 ” . If the language in question is intended to capture some differentiable constraint applicable to a numerical optimization scheme, it is not clear how S332 influences which lattices are traversed. Dependent claim(s) 5 and 10 inherit and fail to cure that/those deficiencies as identified above for the case of intervening claims 3- 4 and 8- 9 , and are rejected accordingly. Claim Interpretation The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2173.01 and 2111. As recited at S2, an initial non-porous model is segmented into a plurality of “unit lattices” which are subsequently “perforated” at S3 to obtain a porous model. Examiner understands a “ unit lattice ” to by definition be porous, as it is a three-dimensional arrangement of interconnected and regularly repeating primitives (e.g. vertices/nodes and beams/struts , where beam based lattices (which is the subject matter disclosed, distinct from surface based gyroids) are commonly called ‘trusses’ ) with empty space therebetween . See the examples reproduced below from relevant literature , wherein the lower right ‘diamond’ truss corresponds to Applicant’s Figs. 3-4 . Accordingly, “perforating” such a unit lattice, is understood to require eroding/ eliminating/removing beams /primitives from an otherwise unmodified lattice , which as understood by the Examiner creates what is referred to in the art as a “variable microstructure” in the context of “topology optimization”. Furthermore, a ‘girder’ and ‘beam’ are read as synonymous and a ‘short girder’ is simply a standard primitive/ beam based on cube/design sub-domain/cell dimensions and any selected lattice type (e.g. there is no disclosed ‘long girder’) . Example trusses (prior to any ‘perforation’ /erosion/ modification ) from the literature include e.g. : Reference may also be made to e.g. Bandara et al. (US 10,635,088 B1) Fig. 3D illustrating truss topologies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 1. Claims 1 - 3 and 6 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Wang et al. ( US 2020/0134918 A1 ). As to claim 1 , Wang discloses a perforation information processing method for a bone scaffold model ( Fig. 8 , Fig. 4, Fig. 24 , [0178] “As herein, the HD-CLIBS model 120 is a general volumetric representation metho s d for 3D objects, which shows major advantages as a single geometric model for modeling, analysis and optimization, throughout the whole design cycle. Particularly, it is developed for the topology optimization of general solid or cellular structures with spatially-varying microstructures as well as optimized shape and topology in three dimensions. Using this model, the topology optimization process simultaneously optimizes the solid domain of the structure as well as the physical properties of all structural cells that comprise the cellular structure” ) , comprising: step S1: importing a nonporous-bone-scaffold initial model ( Fig. 1 initial structure data 102, comprising volumetric and solid representation data, prior to topology optimization as performed by module 104, see also Fig. 7 703, Fig. 23 solid volume 2301, Fig. 24 702, etc., [0080] “In other implementations, in which the initial structure data 102 comprises a solid or surface representation (e.g. , a CAD model) of the structure to be modeled” , [0084] “In the lower example, the initial structure data comprises a solid volumetric model 703 of a piece cancellous bone sample” , etc., ); step S2: segmenting the nonporous-bone-scaffold initial model into a plurality of unit lattices according to an input signal ( Fig. 4 segmenting/partitioning the design domain (region to be replaced with trabecular/porous volume as distinguished from any area excluded from the design domain and intended to remain solid), Fig. 1 division component 112, Fig. 8 802 “Partitioning a global deign domain for the structure into subdomain cells in three-dimensions” , [0067] “As shown in FIG. 4, first the entire design domain D401 is discretized into multiple subdomain cells Ds 402 of a defined volumetric resolution (e.g., number and size)” , [0105] “the disclosed cellular division process provides an excellent mechanism for interior structure inspection and facilitates local geometric modifications without influencing the neighboring regions” ; regarding that input signal recited, see that defined volumetric resolution of [0067] “The resolution of the volumetric cells can be determined adaptively or in relation to the scale and size in the anticipated structural features” – regarding any implied lattice ‘type’ see that separate cellular level set function Ф s , [0067] “A separate cellular level set function Фs is further defined to represent the microstructure within each subdomain cell 403” , Fig. 21, etc., ) ; and step S3: perforating each of the unit lattices, to obtain a porous bone scaffold model ( Fig. 24, illustrating solid representation 702 modified to have that trabecular/porous interior 2401, [0121] “In FIG . 24 , the solid volumetric model 703 (presented in FIG . 7) of a real femur bone sample is used for illustration. In this example, the solid region 703 is filled with bone tissue of periodic cellular structure 1202 (e.g., an HD-CLIBS model that is composed of 2x2x2 of periodic cells, as discussed with reference to FIG. 12), resulting in blended structure 2401. In addition, if more microstructures are preferred, the bone sample can be built with more periodic cells. The model manipulation component 114 can also locally adjust the relative density of the interior micro structures according to practical requirements using the dilation/erosion and grading operations” , [0006] “In this regard, a key issue in topology optimization of cellular structures is the representation scheme for modeling variable microstructures while each microstructure could have its own configuration. A widely used method for realizing this purpose is to first characterize the microstructures via explicit parameters and then adjust the cellular structure by changing the microstructure parameters” ; Wang discloses a ‘perforating’ in view of that interpretation note above, since Wang discloses that the microstructures may be locally adjusted using e.g. erosion and/or grading operations; see also cellular connection component 110, [0114] “These erosion/dilation and grading operations can also be applied to individual subdomain cells of an HD-CL I BS model by changing the trivariate coefficients, since each basis function is locally supported. For example, FIG. 21 illustrates the local modification of independent cells of a composite cellular structure 2101 modeled as an HD-CLIBS model in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. As shown in FIG. 21, in order to dilate only features highlighted in area 2102 in the center of cellular structure, then only the coefficients for the subdomain cells included area 2102 can be increased. The resulting structure 2103 illustrates dilation of the coefficients for only the subdomain cells included in area 2012 while those located outside are kept unchanged” ) . As to claim 2 , Wang discloses the method of claim 1. Wang further discloses the method wherein for a single unit lattice ( each sub-domain cell 403 with a separate level set function , [0064] Equation 4 ), step S3 specifically comprises: step S31: drawing a first quantity of short girders in the unit lattice to form a porous lattice template, wherein the first quantity is received from an input device ( drawing each beam/strut for initial unit cell 403 prior to any erosion/manipulation and part of that initialization of cellular level set functions, Fig. 8 804, – e.g. Fig. 21 2101 ; Examiner notes Fig. 21 illustrates a dilation, however erosion is similarly disclosed/ suggested as an optional local modification; also that ‘first quantity’ is the number associated with a truss of user choice prior to any manipulation, in 2101/Fig. 4 403 eight beams are illustrated ); step S32: generating equidistant sampling points according to a specified sampling pitch in a model space in which the nonporous-bone-scaffold initial model is located ( implied in view of [0062] Fast Matching Method (FMM) which operates on a uniformly spaced grid with a fixed spacing/sampling “step” that is understood to be equivalent to the recited “pitch” , see also Fig. 3 303 and Sethian’s 1995 literature for FMM attached (Fig. 3 discrete grid at page 6), Fig. 4, page 8 “let A be the set of all grid points” , page 9 “where calculation is performed on an N by N grid” , etc., see also Wang Fig. 17 and associated disclosure identifying how unit cells may be further divided to at a desired resolution [0107] “Typically, this discretization is fixed during the initial cellular structure design (e.g. , during initial construction of the HD-CLIBS representation of the cellular structure). However, by applying the cellular division and/or connection operations to the cellular structure post initialization, the HD-CLIBS modeling component 106 can easily adjust the cell layout by manipulating the knots and coefficients of the corresponding B - spline basis functions for the respective cells. As a result, new cellular structure 1702 with a hierarchical discretization schemed with different cell sizes can be generated. This provides for generating two-dimensional and three-dimensional cellular structure models will spatially varying microstructures” ); step S33: calculating shortest distances between each of the sampling points and all the short girders ( Wang FMM algorithm implementation wherein at (a) and (b) of the marching forwards loop the grid/sampling point in NarrowBand with the smallest value is added to A and removed from NarrowBand (marching/sweeping the front/surface forward) – stated differently, Examiner understands this shortest distance to correspond to T for a grid/sample point remove d from the NarrowBand and added to A ); and step S34: extracting, according to the generated sampling points, an isosurface according to a specified short girder cylinder radius ( Figures 20-21, in view of 2002 optionally expanding that initial beam/girder radius producing 2003 (see front/right +6 radius “X” topology/lattice) and/or Fig. 21 modifying beam radius within area 2102 to result in beams of differing dimensions e.g. 2103 – see Figures reproduced below ) by using an isosurface extraction algorithm, to perforate the unit lattices ( [0062] “The signed distance function is the most commonly used function for the level set function Ф, which is differentiable almost everywhere and its gradient satisfies the eikonal equation. Efficient algorithms for calculating the signed distance function include the fast-marching method and the narrow band method , constructing the single function over the entire design domain D” ). As to claim 3 , Wang discloses the method of claim 2. Wang further discloses the method wherein step S31 further comprises: step S311: selecting a plurality of key points in a cube range from coordinates (0, 0, 0) to (1, 1, 1 ) ( see cubes of Fig. 4 402, [0105] “As shown in FIG. 16, model 702, the reconstructed HD-CLIBS model of the trabecular bone cell, is equally split into eight cells as 2x2x2 cubes”, see also Figures reproduced above, wherein keypoints are those endpoints associated with each beam – for the X truss/lattice illustrated in e.g. 2101 they would be at each of the 8 cube corners (e.g. (0,0,0), (1,1,0), (1,0,1) and (0,1,1) among others, and Fig. 17 in view of the manner in which the volume for each sub-domain cell maybe sub-divided to any desired/practical resolution – so as to e.g. modify beam thickness for sub-volume 2102 ). step S312: creating line segments between the generated key points, to form the short girders in the unit lattice ( see sub-domain cell lattice beams of Fig. 4 403, Fig. 21 1201, etc., ) ; and step S313: checking whether there is a key point, of which a connectivity is still 1 after the lattices are laid densely, among the key points generated in step S2 1 in the structural diagram of the line segments generated in step S22, and returning to step S2 1 if there is, otherwise, performing step S32 ( Wang suggests a connectivity analysis between neighboring cells with reference to e.g. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, wherein Fig. 9 and mismatch 903 is most pertinent , Wang discloses S313 as cellular level set bivariate functions are modified to eliminate any mismatch - while Fig. 9 is illustrated in the context of a 2D analysis (for the mismatch – derived from 3D volumes 902 and 901) , Wang discloses extending the same to 3D , Fig. 15 ; [0092] “FIG . 9 illustrates the geometric assembly of two HD-CLIBS object models into a cellular structure in two dimensions in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. As shown in FIG. 9, a first two-dimensional object 903a is constructed with its cellular level set bivariate function show as unit 901 and a second two-dimensional object 903b is constructed with its cellular level set bivariate function shown as unit 902. In one implementation, unit 901 was constructed from an erosion operation of a given two-dimensional structure, while unit 902 was result of a dilation operation from the same structure. Such erosion and dilation operations are discussed in greater detail infra with reference to FIG. 18. In the zero level of the respective level set function, the two objects embedded in unit 901 and 902 are assembled along a chosen side to form a new cellular structure 903. In accordance with this example, the assembled object has geometric mismatch (i.e., a step) at the connection between the two cells 903a and 903b” , [0093] “ The geometric discontinuity of the geometric mismatch, as shown in this example can be eliminated by enforcing the geometric connectivity conditions defined ” ) . As to claim 6 , this claim is the system claim corresponding to the method of claim 1 and is rejected accordingly. Regarding corresponding structure see ( Wang [0010] “According to an embodiment, a system is provided that comprises at least one processor, and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations …” ). As to claims 7-8 , these claims are the system claims corresponding to method claims 2-3 respectively, and are rejected accordingly. 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 of this title, 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. 1. Claims 4 -5 and 9 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ( US 2020/0134918 A1 ) . As to claim 4 , Wang discloses the method of claim 2. Wang further discloses the method wherein S33 further comprises step S331: scaling a dimension of the unit lattice to a specified dimension, and densely filling the scaled unit lattices in the model space ( [0067] discretized Ds for a “defined volumetric resolution (e.g. number and size)” , in further view of [0107] “As a result, new cellular structure 1702 with a hierarchical discretization schemed with different cell sizes can be generated” , see also [0121] “In addition, if more microstructures are preferred, the bone sample can be built with more periodic cell s . The model manipulation component 114 can also locally adjust the relative density of the interior microstructures according to practical requirements using the dilation/erosion and grading operations” ); step S332: assigning an initial value + ∞ to distances of all the sampling points generated in step S32 in a distance field ( see 112(b) rejection above, it is not clear if this might result in all sampling points as being considered in a “ narrow ” band around/adjacent to an existing front/surface or alternatively all being set to the “far away” points for an isosurface extraction algorithm such as FMM disclosed in Wang – see FMM reproduced below ) ; step S333: traversing all lattices that are filled in step S33 1 and that possibly contribute to the shortest distances of the sampling points generated in step S3 in the distance field ( see above, those traversed appear to be at least those with beams that may extend beyond the volumetric confines /boundary skin part of 2301/702 /2204 , see e.g. Wang Figures 23 and 24 volumes 2302 and 1202 for incorporation into 2301 and 702 , with those portions that would extend beyond the volumetric constraints for the model/blended structure ) ; and step S334: traversing short girders in all the lattices traversed in step S333, if the short girder is completely inside the nonporous-bone-scaffold initial model, updating shortest distance values of sampling points in a specified range near the short girder ( see Wang as applied above for the case of claim 2 in view of a narrow band and discrete grid sizes for FMM , [0117] “the model manipulation component 114 can generate the inside part 2300 for the new cell 2206 by applying a min operation on the two sets of coefficients in accordance with Equation 20” ) , if a part of the short girder is inside the nonporous-bone-scaffold initial model ( Examiner notes that the current language does not recite but might suggest “only” a part – if a short girder is completely inside the volumetric confines of e.g. 2301/702 ([0188] “ with a cover skin of controlled thickness attached onto the surface of the structure ” , [0120], etc., ) , then so too is ‘a part’ of that same girder /beam - this ‘if’ condition appears met even for the case that the ‘if’ above is true ) , calculating the part of the short girder inside the nonporous-bone-scaffold initial model, and updating the shortest distance values of the sampling points in a specific range nearby the part for the part ( Wang Fig. 22, [0118-0119] “the model manipulation component 114 can generate the new cell 2205 combining these two parts with a max operation in accordance with Equation 22” , in further view of Figures 25 and 26 in view of 2612 Apply equality constraints on the subdomain boundaries ) . Should Applicant contest Wang as applied for that/those interpretations taken in light of the associated 112(b) rejections raised above , Examiner would assert that the steps recited appear to at best constitute an infill/topology optimization employing no more than constraints ensuring inside structures of a cell do not extend beyond an outer surface ( e.g. 2201 ) and that skin of thickness controlled by r ([0120] , [0188] ) , while similarly complying with pre/ user defined settings regarding lattice type, thickness, subdomain cell connectivity, material considerations, and/or loading conditions which are suggested as design choice constraints routinely employed in the art. See e.g. Wang [0127] “ Depending on the optimization function/objective used (which can vary), other predefined design constraints for the structure can include (but are not limited to) the Young's modulus of the material, the Poisson's ratio, the maximum volume ratio, the knot span, and the loading conditions. Using this model, the topology optimization process simultaneously optimizes the solid domain of the structure as well as the physical properties of all structural cells that comprise the cellular structure ” . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Wang to employ one or more different optimization functions/objectives for that recited ‘perforating’ /series of adjustment operations to include erosion, dilation, grading and blending functions as taught/ suggested by Wang and performed by 116, the motivation being as similarly taught/suggested therein and readily recognized by POSITA, that such a variation in optimization functions/objectives may ensure the model and/or any subsequently derived parts satisfy user and/or designer decided constraints. As to claim 5 , Wang teaches/suggests the method of claim 4. Wang further discloses the method wherein values in each region in step S334 are updated concurrently and independently ( [0014] “For example , the adjusting can comprise independently adjusting geometric properties of the subdomain cell” , [0161] “At 2611, the optimization component 116 can update the implicit B-spline coefficients in each subdomain cell separately and independently. For example, B-spline coefficients can be updated using the steepest descent scheme, and other gradient based optimization methods, such optimization control (OC) methods, the method of moving asymptotes (MMA), or the like. In the embodiment shown, the updating can include applying equality constraints on the subdomain boundaries at 2612 and applying the re-normalization scheme to the coefficients at 2613” etc., and concurrently as per [0157] “Using this model, the topology optimization process simultaneously optimizes the solid domain of the structure as well as the physical properties of all structural cells that comprise the cellular structure” , [0203] , etc., ). As to claims 9-10 , these claims are the system claims corresponding to method claims 4-5 respectively, and are rejected accordingly. Additional References Prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additionally cited references (see attached PTO-892) otherwise not relied upon above have been made of record in view of the manner in which they evidence the general state of the art. Regarding that specified short girder cylinder radius of S34 recited, see also Bandara et al. (US 10,635,088 B1) at 410 “Adjusting (i) a thickness of the beams in the lattice”, col 33 lines 55-65 “After the modifying 405 completes changes to both the three dimensional topology and the one or more outer shapes of the three dimensional topology, a thickness of the beams in the lattice or a density of the lattice is adjusted 410 ” . Also potentially pertinent is Wu et al. “Infill Optimization for Additive Manufacturing–Approaching Bone-like Porous Structures” with reference to Fig. 9, and section 4.3 “The minimal feature size can be controlled by the filter radius r in the projection Ф → Ф̄, as thoroughly studied in [26], [35]. Fig. 9 compares the optimized structures with different minimal feature sizes: r = 2 (left), and r = 3 (right).” While not applied as such, Bandara appears to similarly anticipate at least claim(s) 1/6 , with a portion (col 21 lines 1-21 reproduced below: Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IAN L LEMIEUX whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5796 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00 EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Chan Park can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7409 . 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. /IAN L LEMIEUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669