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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 11/07/2022
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on have been 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 1-10 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recites the limitation "sheet like material”. It is unclear from the claim language whether “it’s a specific type of sheet material or is an example of the material”. Correction is required. For compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim as follows
“sheet material”.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "when said primary surface is concave said secondary surface is convex, or when said primary surface is convex said secondary surface is concave”. It is unclear from the claim language whether the steps that follow “when” are positively performed. Correction is required. For compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim as follows
“said primary surface is concave and said secondary surface is convex, or said primary surface is convex and said secondary surface is concave”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said curve”. It is unclear from the claim language whether it refers to a previously defined term or if it’s defining a new term since there is a lack of antecedent basis for this term.
Dependent claims do not resolve the issues in the independent claim, and thus are also rejected under 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on the rejected independent claim.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to the statutory category of medium.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet like material using a computer device, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the computer device, cause the computer device to: obtain information related to a desired design of a three-dimensional object;
obtain information related to material characteristics of the two-dimensional sheet like material;
define a primary surface and a secondary surface of the desired design of the three- dimensional object; and
define a geometrical relationship between said primary surface and secondary surface;
wherein the secondary surface is a reflection of the primary surface in a two-dimensional plane, and wherein when said primary surface is concave said secondary surface is convex, or when said primary surface is convex said secondary surface is concave; and
provide, or otherwise create, a digital instruction for a fully developed spreading and subsequent folding of a two-dimensional sheet into the obtained desired design of the three-dimensional object,
wherein said digital instruction is based on the defined primary and secondary surfaces, respectively, and said obtained material characteristics.
The limitations “define a primary surface and a secondary surface of the desired design of the three- dimensional object”, “define a geometrical relationship between said primary surface and secondary surface”, and “provide, or otherwise create, a digital instruction for a fully developed spreading and subsequent folding of a two-dimensional sheet into the obtained desired design of the three-dimensional object” are abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet like material using a computer device, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the computer device, cause the computer device to: obtain information related to a desired design of a three-dimensional object” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtain information related to material characteristics of the two-dimensional sheet like material” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“wherein the secondary surface is a reflection of the primary surface in a two-dimensional plane, and wherein when said primary surface is concave said secondary surface is convex, or when said primary surface is convex said secondary surface is concave” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h))
“wherein said digital instruction is based on the defined primary and secondary surfaces, respectively, and said obtained material characteristics” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites: “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computer device, cause the computer device to: transmit, via a transmitter, said digital instruction to an industrial robot for the spreading and subsequent folding of the two-dimensional sheet by means of the industrial robot” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the transmitting of the provided instructions (writing the instructions on a piece of paper) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “wherein said material characteristics are any one or a combination of thickness, type of material, hardness toughness, tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, fatigue strength, corrosion, plasticity, malleability, creep and structure of the material and dimension of material, and wherein said material characteristics define boundary conditions for said folding of said two- dimensional sheet” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the material characteristics under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein said primary surface is the surface that controls the desired design of three-dimensional object”. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the primary surface that are being defined (mental observation of defining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein said curve controls the desired design of three-dimensional object” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of data the designer has selected. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein said desired design of three-dimensional shape is further defined by an interface design based on a technical volume and ergonomic requirements of the three-dimensional shape object” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the shape of the structure (mental observation of shapes with pen and paper) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “wherein said two-dimensional sheet material is any one of a metal or plastics material”. This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the sheet material that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible
Claim 8 recites “wherein said metal material is any one of a steel, a stainless steel and an aluminum” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the material that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible
Regarding claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1:
Claims 9-10 are directed to the statutory category of medium.
Claim 9 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet like material using an industrial robot, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the industrial robot, cause the industrial robot to:
provide a two-dimensional sheet like material;
obtain a digital instruction for the spreading and subsequent folding of the provided two- dimensional sheet by means of the industrial robot; and
execute the obtained digital instruction to produce, or otherwise create, a desired design of a three-dimensional object from the provided two-dimensional sheet like material.
The limitations “execute the obtained digital instruction to produce, or otherwise create, a desired design of a three-dimensional object from the provided two-dimensional sheet like material” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet like material using an industrial robot, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the industrial robot, cause the industrial robot to” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Particular Machine -referencing MPEP 2106.05(b))
“provide a two-dimensional sheet like material” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtain a digital instruction for the spreading and subsequent folding of the provided two- dimensional sheet by means of the industrial robot” (Field of Use and data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 9 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 9 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 further recites: “receiving, via a receiver, said digital instruction from a computer device” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the transmitting or receiving of the instructions (writing the instructions on a piece of paper) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devin Balkcom, NPL “Robotic Origami Folding”, Published: August 2004, (hereafter Balkcom), in views of Yuntong Du. NPL, “Design and foldability of Miura-based cylindrical origami structures”, Published: 27 November 2020 (hereafter Du).
Regarding claim 1. Balkcom teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet like material using a computer device, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the computer device (Page 95, micro-computer running custom software, describing a robot manipulating a flexible object)(Par 68, planning and simulation techniques for mechanisms in robotics and computer graphics ), cause the computer device to:
obtain information related to a desired design of a three-dimensional object (Page 99, sec 4.2, desired goal state is known and each crease has been assigned )(Page 105, fig 4.7, input to the planner is the pattern and the desired stacking of the facets);
obtain information related to material characteristics of the two-dimensional sheet like material (Page 115, Sec 4.7, sheet metal bending)(Page 116, Sec 4.7.1, bend sheet metal into three dimensional forms)(Page 123, sec 4.9, analogous to bending sheet metal in a brake);
define a primary surface and a secondary surface of the desired design of the three- dimensional object (Page 99, fig 4.3, facet are define 1,2,3,4 and instruction to fold, c1,c2,c3,c4); and
wherein the secondary surface is a reflection of the primary surface in a two-dimensional plane (Page 68, Sec 3.1.11, during folding and tucking, facet are reflected through a plane perpendicular to the facets)(Page 121, fig 4.18, creasing as reflection), and
wherein when said primary surface is concave said secondary surface is convex, or when said primary surface is convex said secondary surface is concave (Page 60, sec 3.1.3, the creases are concave or convex, or vice versa); and
provide, or otherwise create, a digital instruction for a fully developed spreading and subsequent folding of a two-dimensional sheet into the obtained desired design of the three-dimensional object (Page 68, sec 3.2, instructions encode both intermediate states and the goal, robots planning and simulation)(Page 92, sec 4.1, modelled on traditional planners for robot arms, enumerates all collision free sequences),
wherein said digital instruction is based on the defined primary and secondary surfaces, respectively, and said obtained material characteristics (Page 106, folding machine, theorem 8)(Page 108, fig 4.11).
Balkcom does not teach define a geometrical relationship between said primary surface and secondary surface;
Du teaches define a geometrical relationship between said primary surface and secondary surface (Du, Page 2, Col 1, Par 3, established the geometrical relationship between 2D fold lines and 3D origami structures)(Du, Page 5, sec 3.3.1, the geometrical relationship between the 2D and 3D spatial structures)(Du, Page 12, sec 6, derived from a mathematical perspective);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balkcom to incorporate the teachings of Du to define a geometrical relationship between primary and secondary surfaces because it allows an understanding how the cylindrical structures are formed, if they are foldable and developable, thus giving an indication of feasibility (Du, Page 2, col 1, par 4)
Regarding claim 2. Balkcom and Du teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computer device (Page 106, sec 4.5, the position is first positioned on the table above the slot, determines the crease, blade presses)(Page 109, sec 4.5, the machine is able to completely fold both the simple airplane design ), cause the computer device to:
transmit, via a transmitter, said digital instruction to an industrial robot for the spreading (Page 108, fig 4.11, robotic folding)(Page 109, fig 4.12, folded automatically by the robot) and
subsequent folding of the two-dimensional sheet by means of the industrial robot (Page 109, fig 4.12, folded automatically by the robot).
Regarding claim 3. Balkcom and Du teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1(Page 98, sec 4.1.6, plastic deformation, elastic)(Page 130, Sec 5.1.3, 3D structure)(Page 147, sec 5.6.2, wxh dimensions), and
wherein said material characteristics define boundary conditions for said folding of said two- dimensional sheet (Page 147, sec 5.6.2, wxh dimensions).
Regarding claim 4. Balkcom and Du teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein said primary surface is the surface that controls the desired design of three-dimensional object (Page 151, fig 5.14 facet 1, is grounded).
Regarding claim 5. Balkcom and Du teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein said curve controls the desired design of three-dimensional object (Page 154, fig 5.16, folds and creases, to have 3D structure).
Regarding claim 6. Balkcom and Du teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein said desired design of three-dimensional shape is further defined by an interface design based on a technical volume and ergonomic requirements of the three-dimensional shape object (Du, Page 5, Fig 4, base unit for cylindrical rigid origami, thus a cylindrical shape having a technical volume).
Regarding claim 7. Balkcom and Du teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein said two-dimensional sheet material is any one of a metal or plastics material (Page 92, Sec 4.1, sheet metal bending).
Regarding claim 8. Balkcom and Du teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim7, wherein said metal material is any one of a steel, a stainless steel and an aluminum (Page 15, sec 1.3.2, sheet metal brake)(Page 123, sec 4.9, bending sheet metal in a brake, thus compatible with steel and aluminum).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Devin Balkcom, NPL “Robotic Origami Folding”, Published: August 2004, (hereafter Balkcom).
Regarding claim 9. Balkcom teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet like material using an industrial robot (Page 95, micro-computer running custom software, describing a robot manipulating a flexible object),
wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the industrial robot (Par 68, planning and simulation techniques for mechanisms in robotics and computer graphics), cause the industrial robot to:
provide a two-dimensional sheet like material (Page 108, fig 4.11, sheet is provided);
obtain a digital instruction for the spreading and subsequent folding of the provided two- dimensional sheet by means of the industrial robot (Page 68, sec 3.2, instructions encode both intermediate states and the goal, robots planning and simulation)(Page 92, sec 4.1, modelled on traditional planners for robot arms, enumerates all collision free sequences); and
execute the obtained digital instruction to produce, or otherwise create, a desired design of a three-dimensional object from the provided two-dimensional sheet like material (Page 108, fig 4.11 x, create the 3D structure).
Regarding claim 10. Balkcom teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, comprising instructions which, when executed on the at least one processor of the industrial robot, cause the at least one processor to carry out:
receiving, via a receiver, said digital instruction from a computer device (Page 108, fig 4.11, robotic folding)(Page 109, fig 4.12, folded automatically by the robot).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189