DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 5-13, and 17 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on June 2, 2026. Claims 2-4, 14-16, and 18-20 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 1, 5-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-13, and 17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed April 2, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 11, 2026 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 U.S.C. § 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, 5-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 5-12 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and claim 17 is directed to a system and falls within the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 13, and 17: The limitations of:
“iteratively grouping segments, where first segment and a second segment of a pair of segments are grouped when: each segment of the pair is an extrusion surface and a union of the first segment and the second segment is an extrusion surface having a same extrusion axis as the first segment and the second segment, or each segment of the pair is an extrusion surface and one of the first segment and the second segment is a closing plane for other one of the first segment and the second segment”,
“determining one or more CAD volume extrusion operators, each CAD volume extrusion operator corresponding to a respective group”,
“exploring each pair of segments”
“determining whether: a first disparity between a value of an extrusion-detection objective function for the union of the segments of the explored pair and a weighted sum of the values of the extrusion-detection objective function for the segments of the explored pair is lower than a first predefined threshold, the sum being weighted based on areas of the segments, or a second disparity between the value of an extrusion-closing objective function for the segments of the explored pair and the weighted sum is lower than a second predefined threshold, the extrusion-closing objection function rewarding orthogonality of an input segment with respect to an extrusion axis of another input segment”,
“grouping the segments of the explored pair when the first disparity is lower than the first predefined threshold or when the second disparity is lower than the second predefined threshold”,
“wherein: the value of the extrusion-detection objective function for an input segment is a smallest eigenvalue of a normal matrix of the input segment and/or the value of the extrusion-closing objective function is a smallest eigenvalue of a matrix that is a weighted sum of a normal matrix of the other input segment and identity minus a normal matrix of the input segment, the sum being weighted based on the areas of the input segments”,
“wherein: the first disparity is of the type:
δ
S
1
,
S
2
=
λ
S
1
⊔
S
2
m
-
A
S
1
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
λ
S
1
m
-
A
S
2
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
λ
S
2
m
, where S1 and S2 are the two segments of the explored pair,
λ
S
1
⊔
S
2
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
1
⊔
S
2
of the union of S1 and S2,
λ
S
1
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
1
of S1,
λ
S
2
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
2
of S2, where
T
S
1
⊔
S
2
=
A
S
1
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
T
S
1
+
A
S
2
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
T
S
2
,
A
S
1
being the area of S1,
A
S
2
being the area of S2” and “and/or the second disparity is of the type:
δ
⟂
S
1
,
S
2
=
λ
S
1
⟂
S
2
m
-
A
S
1
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
λ
S
1
m
-
A
S
2
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
λ
S
2
m
, where
λ
S
1
⟂
S
2
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix
T
S
1
⟂
S
2
=
A
S
1
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
T
S
1
+
A
S
2
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
(
1
-
T
S
2
)
where S1 is the other input segment and S2 is the input segment,
λ
S
1
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
1
of S1, and
λ
S
2
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
2
of S2”, and
“wherein, for each determined CAD volume extrusion operator, the method further comprises using the CAD volume extrusion operator to detect a corresponding volume closed by extrusion surfaces”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitation can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper two portions of the model when both portions are an extrusion surface and if their union into a single portion yields the same extrusion axis as the extrusion axis of the portions individually,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the extrusion operator to form the type of extrusion by determining if the profile curve of the combined portions is closed by verifying the total curvature of the profile curve is equal to 2π and determining the profile curve direction by the sign of the total curvature of the profile curve is positive or negative,
a person can mentally create and examine or draw with pen and paper two two-dimensional portions of the model as a pair of portions,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper if the difference between an extrusion-detection objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of the extrusion-detection objective function is less than a first threshold using simple arithmetic or alternatively a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper if the difference between an extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of the extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair that is an orthogonal to the extrusion axis for one of the portions is less than a second threshold using simple arithmetic,
a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper two portions of the model when the calculated extrusion- detection objective function difference or extrusion- closing objective difference is less than first threshold or the second threshold, respectively,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper if difference between an extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of the extrusion-detection objective function is less than a first threshold using simple arithmetic where the extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair is a smallest eigenvalue of a normal matrix of the input portion of the pair, and/or a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper if the difference between an extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of the extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair that is an orthogonal to the extrusion axis for one of the portions is less than a second threshold using simple arithmetic where the extrusion-closing objective function value is smallest eigenvalue of a matrix that is a weighted sum of a normal matrix of the other input segment and identity minus a normal matrix of the input segment, the sum being weighted based on the areas of the input segments,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper if difference between an extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of the extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair is less than a first threshold using simple arithmetic where the extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair is a smallest eigenvalue of a normal matrix of the input portion of the pair, and a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper if difference between an extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of the extrusion-detection objective function is less than a first threshold using simple arithmetic where the extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair is a smallest eigenvalue of a normal matrix of the input portion of the pair, and
a person can mentally identify or with pen and paper that the region enclosed by the determined extrusion surfaces is an interior volume and can also determine the value of volume by integrating over the total profile curve comprising of merged segments that enclose a space.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, claims 1, 13, and 17: The limitations of:
“determining one or more CAD volume extrusion operators, each CAD volume extrusion operator corresponding to a respective group”,
“determining whether: a first disparity between a value of an extrusion-detection objective function for the union of the segments of the explored pair and a weighted sum of the values of the extrusion-detection objective function for the segments of the explored pair is lower than a first predefined threshold, the sum being weighted based on areas of the segments, or a second disparity between the value of an extrusion-closing objective function for the segments of the explored pair and the weighted sum is lower than a second predefined threshold, the extrusion-closing objection function rewarding orthogonality of an input segment with respect to an extrusion axis of another input segment”,
“wherein: the value of the extrusion-detection objective function for an input segment is a smallest eigenvalue of a normal matrix of the input segment and/or the value of the extrusion-closing objective function is a smallest eigenvalue of a matrix that is a weighted sum of a normal matrix of the other input segment and identity minus a normal matrix of the input segment, the sum being weighted based on the areas of the input segments”, and
“wherein: the first disparity is of the type:
δ
S
1
,
S
2
=
λ
S
1
⊔
S
2
m
-
A
S
1
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
λ
S
1
m
-
A
S
2
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
λ
S
2
m
, where S1 and S2 are the two segments of the explored pair,
λ
S
1
⊔
S
2
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
1
⊔
S
2
of the union of S1 and S2,
λ
S
1
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
1
of S1,
λ
S
2
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
2
of S2, where
T
S
1
⊔
S
2
=
A
S
1
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
T
S
1
+
A
S
2
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
T
S
2
,
A
S
1
being the area of S1,
A
S
2
being the area of S2” and “and/or the second disparity is of the type:
δ
⟂
S
1
,
S
2
=
λ
S
1
⟂
S
2
m
-
A
S
1
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
λ
S
1
m
-
A
S
2
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
λ
S
2
m
, where
λ
S
1
⟂
S
2
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix
T
S
1
⟂
S
2
=
A
S
1
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
T
S
1
+
A
S
2
A
S
1
+
A
S
2
(
1
-
T
S
2
)
where S1 is the other input segment and S2 is the input segment,
λ
S
1
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
1
of S1, and
λ
S
2
m
is the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix
T
S
2
of S2”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
calculating the extrusion operator for the model can be conducted by calculating the total curvature of the profile curve of the portions to check if the profile curve is closed and for the sign of the total curvature (further see claims 10-11 and claim 12 for the equations for the total curvature of the profile curve),
calculating if difference between an extrusion-detection objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of an extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair is less than a first threshold can be conducted by taking the difference between the first threshold and extrusion-detection objective function difference of the weighted sum of the areas and current pair value and obtaining a positive value, or alternatively calculating if difference between an extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of an extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair that is an orthogonal to the extrusion axis for one of the portions is less than a second threshold can be conducted by taking the difference between the second threshold and extrusion-closing objective function difference of the weighted sum of the areas and current pair value and obtaining a positive value (further see Pg. 26-28),
calculating if difference between an extrusion-detection objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of an extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair is less than a first threshold can be conducted by taking the difference between the first threshold and extrusion-detection objective function difference of the weighted sum of the areas and the smallest eigenvalue of a normal matrix of the input portion for a current pair and obtaining a positive value, and/or alternatively calculating if difference between an extrusion-closing objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of an extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair that is an orthogonal to the extrusion axis for one of the portions is less than a second threshold can be conducted by taking the difference between the second threshold and smallest eigenvalue of a matrix that is a weighted sum of a normal matrix of the other input segment and identity minus a normal matrix of the input segment, the sum being weighted based on the areas of the input segments and current pair value and obtaining a positive value (further see Pg. 26-28), and
calculating if difference between an extrusion-detection objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of an extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair is less than a first threshold can be conducted by taking the difference between the first threshold and extrusion-detection objective function difference of the weighted sum of the areas and the smallest eigenvalue of a normal matrix of the input portion for a current pair and obtaining a positive value, and calculating if difference between an extrusion-detection objective function value for a current pair and a weighted sum of the areas of an extrusion-detection objective function for the current pair is less than a first threshold can be conducted by taking the difference between the first threshold and extrusion-detection objective function difference of the weighted sum of the areas and the smallest eigenvalue of a normal matrix of the input portion for a current pair and obtaining a positive value (further see Pg. 25-29).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 13, and 17 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 13, and 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing a method for CAD volume extrusion operator detection in a CAD 3D model representing a mechanical part” and “A computer system comprising: a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for CAD volume extrusion operator detection in a CAD 3D model representing a mechanical part that when executed by the processor causes the processor” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the following additional elements of “the CAD 3D model being a discrete geometrical representation of the mechanical part and being obtained from a scan of a real-world mechanical part by physically scanning the real-world mechanical part, thereby acquiring physical measurements of the real-world mechanical part, and obtaining the discrete geometrical representation from the physical measurements by a 3D reconstruction process” and “obtaining a segmentation of the CAD 3D model, the CAD 3D model including a skin representing an outer surface of the mechanical part, the segmentation comprising segments each representing a skin portion” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 13, and 17 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 13, and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, scanning physical mechanical objects to obtain a segmented 3D CAD model has been shown in the art to also be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 2018/0285500 A1 Wilcox, William et al. Para. 0011 “An electronic representation of the actual part is, or is based on, a point cloud or a mesh captured from one of the many surveying sensors known in the art, e.g. white light scanners, blue light scanners, Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM), 3D laser scanners, ultrasonic thickness tester, or Computer Tomography based scanning devices. Rather than trying to convert this point cloud or mesh of the actual part into a mesh that is compatible with numerical software, a model generated from the theoretical CAD-model of the target part is reshaped to match the point cloud. This results in a cleaner and more complete mesh”. Further see US 2018/0059631 A1 Newell, Nicholas et al. Para. 0003 “The 3D printable model data may be defined using a stereo lithography (STL) format, or using another suitable 3D model data format now known or later developed. The 3D printable model data may be created using a computer aided design (CAD) system. Alternatively, the 3D printable model data may be generated from captured image data acquired by a scanner 3D system, a 3D digital image capture device (e.g., a digital camera), and/or a series of captured images that provide a series of different views of the object of interest (such that the 3D printable model data can be determined).” Additionally see Buonamici, Francesco et al. “Reverse engineering modeling methods and tools: a survey.” Computer-Aided Design and Applications 15, no. 3 (2018): 443-464 on Pg. 443-444 “Not by chance, these techniques have proved to be particularly useful in, among others, automotive and medical fields, where the digitalization of clay models and human body parts, respectively, are commonly carried out. Most of the tools commonly used by designers are implemented within commercial RE software packages, which combine typical CAD modeling functionalities with a set of dedicated functions to interact with 3D scanned data (i.e. point clouds/mesh)” and Pg. 445, “In the past decades, many 3D acquisition technologies (e.g. tomography, photogrammetry, CMMs, laser scanning) were developed and used in RE.”)
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein for each respective group, determining the CAD volume extrusion operator corresponding to the respective group includes building a profile curve of the respective group”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the profile curve of the model can be conducted by adding the profile curve of a first portion to the profile curve of a second portion (see Pg. 29, “Building the profile curve may be based on the profile curves of the segments in the respective group. For example, building the profile curve may comprise, for each segment of the respective group, providing a respective profile curve of the segment. In this case, building the profile curve further comprises iteratively concatenating the respective profile curves, where a pair of respective profile curves are concatenated if a disparity between the respective profile curves of the pair is smaller than a third predefined threshold” and Pg. 29-31).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein for each respective group, determining the CAD volume extrusion operator corresponding to the respective group includes building a profile curve of the respective group”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper traces of two portions of the model to form a profile curve of the model that are combined.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional limitation of “iteratively concatenating the respective profile curves, where a pair of respective profile curves are concatenated when a third disparity between the respective profile curves of the pair is smaller than a third predefined threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the profile curve of the model can be conducted by adding the profile curve of a first portion to the profile curve of a second portion for the distance between the first and second portion profile curve being less than a threshold and repeating for all profile curve portions (further see Pg. 29-31).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, it recites additional limitations of “for each segment of the respective group, providing a respective profile curve of the segment”, and “iteratively concatenating the respective profile curves, where a pair of respective profile curves are concatenated when a third disparity between the respective profile curves of the pair is smaller than a third predefined threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a profile curve of each portion of the model to be combined, and a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper two portions of the model to form a profile curve of the model that are combined when the distance between the 2 profile curves is less than a third threshold.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein concatenating two respective profile curves comprises merging an ending point of one of the profile curves with a starting point of the other profile curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the profile curve of the model can be conducted by adding the end point of a profile curve of a first portion to the starting point of a profile curve of a second portion for the distance between the first and second portion profile curve being less than a threshold and repeating for all profile curve portions (further see Pg. 31).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein concatenating two respective profile curves comprises merging an ending point of one of the profile curves with a starting point of the other profile curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper two portions of the model to form a profile curve of the model by connecting the end point of the first portion profile curve with the starting pointing of the other portion profile curve when the distance between the 2 profile curves is less than a third threshold.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 8, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the third disparity between the respective profile curves is a distance between the ending point and the starting point”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the profile curve of the model can be conducted by adding the end point of a profile curve of a first portion to the starting point of a profile curve of a second portion for the distance between the first and second portion profile curve being less than a threshold and repeating for all profile curve portions (further see Pg. 31).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the third disparity between the respective profile curves is a distance between the ending point and the starting point”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper two portions of the model to form a profile curve of the model by connecting the end point of the first portion profile curve with the starting pointing of the other portion profile curve when the distance between the 2 profile curves is less than a third threshold.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 9, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the distance is of a type:
d
γ
1
,
γ
2
=
γ
1
+
-
γ
2
-
, where | · | is a Euclidean norm in a profile plane of the respective group,
γ
1
and
γ
2
are the respective profile curves,
γ
1
+
is the ending point of
γ
1
, and
γ
2
-
is the starting point of
γ
2
”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the profile curve of the model can be conducted by adding the end point of a profile curve of a first portion to the starting point of a profile curve of a second portion for the distance between the first and second portion profile curve being less than a threshold and repeating for all profile curve portions (further see Pg. 31-32).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the distance is of a type:
d
γ
1
,
γ
2
=
γ
1
+
-
γ
2
-
, where | · | is a Euclidean norm in a profile plane of the respective group,
γ
1
and
γ
2
are the respective profile curves,
γ
1
+
is the ending point of
γ
1
, and
γ
2
-
is the starting point of
γ
2
” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper two portions of the model to form a profile curve of the model by connecting the end point of the first portion profile curve with the starting pointing of the other portion profile curve when the distance between the 2 profile curves is less than a third threshold.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein, for each respective group, the determining the CAD volume extrusion operator corresponding to the respective group further includes determining an extrusion type of the CAD volume extrusion operator based on the built profile curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the extrusion operator for the model can be conducted by calculating the total curvature of the profile curve to check if the profile curve is closed and for the sign of the total curvature (further see claims 11 and claim 12 for the equations for the total curvature of the profile curve).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein, for each respective group, the determining the CAD volume extrusion operator corresponding to the respective group further includes determining an extrusion type of the CAD volume extrusion operator based on the built profile curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the extrusion operator to form the type of extrusion by determining if the profile curve is closed by verifying the total curvature of the profile curve is equal to 2π and determining the profile curve direction by the sign of the total curvature of the profile curve is positive or negative.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 11, it recites additional limitations of “determining whether the profile curve is closed or not” and “computing a total curvature of the profile curve where: the CAD volume extrusion operator is an extrusion surface when the profile curve is open and an absolute value of the total curvature is strictly smaller than 2π, the CAD volume extrusion operator is a pad operator when the profile curve is closed and the total curvature equals β2π, and the CAD volume extrusion operator is a pocket operator when the profile curve is closed and the total curvature equals -β2π, where β ∈ {-1,1}”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the extrusion operator for the model can be conducted by calculating the total curvature of the profile curve is equal to 2π to check if the profile curve is closed and to determine the sign of the total curvature for the corresponding operator (further see claim 12 for the equations for the total curvature of the profile curve).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, it recites an additional limitation of “determining whether the profile curve is closed or not” and “computing a total curvature of the profile curve where: the CAD volume extrusion operator is an extrusion surface when the profile curve is open and an absolute value of the total curvature is strictly smaller than 2π, the CAD volume extrusion operator is a pad operator when the profile curve is closed and the total curvature equals β2π, and the CAD volume extrusion operator is a pocket operator when the profile curve is closed and the total curvature equals -β2π, where β ∈ {-1,1}”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the extrusion operator to form the type of extrusion by determining if the profile curve is closed by computing and verifying the total curvature of the profile curve is equal to 2π and determining the profile curve direction by the sign of the total curvature of the profile curve is positive or negative.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 12, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the total curvature is of a different type:
κ
t
o
t
=
∫
I
κ
γ
t
d
t
, where
κ
γ
(
t
)
is an algebraic curvature of the built profile curve
γ
at parameter
t
”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the extrusion operator for the model can be conducted by calculating the total curvature of the profile curve is equal to 2π to check if the profile curve is closed and to determine the sign of the total curvature for the corresponding operator (further see claim 12 for the equations for the total curvature of the profile curve).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the total curvature is of a different type:
κ
t
o
t
=
∫
I
κ
γ
t
d
t
, where
κ
γ
(
t
)
is an algebraic curvature of the built profile curve
γ
at parameter
t
”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the extrusion operator to form the type of extrusion by determining if the profile curve is closed by computing and verifying the total curvature of the profile curve is equal to 2π and determining the profile curve direction by the sign of the total curvature of the profile curve is positive or negative.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 5-13, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 5-12 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not recite mental processes as they are not performed through in the human mind since the limitations are too complicated. (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 13-14 and 16).
MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1) recites “the Court has explained that “[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,” and has cautioned “to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.” Id. See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon"). Examiners should accordingly be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)”; MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) recites “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”, and “in evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”; and MPEP § 2106.04(2)(III)(B) recites “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474 (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").” (emphasis added).
The examiner has provided the rational for the claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above and respectively disagrees that the limitations are too complicated to be performed by a human using pencil and paper. The limitations recite identify and combining segments of the model if their curves lie on the same axis, if differences between objective functions are under certain thresholds, and if determining that the combined segments have a total curvature is a closed curve and contains a positive value or negative value for the determination of an extrusion operator. This all can be done with a person using a pencil and paper has an aid to perform the grouping of segments and general mathematical calculations, to determine if objective values are under a certain threshold, and to determinations total curvature. Since these limitations can be performed by a person using pencil and paper, the applicant is merely claiming that the concept be performed in a computer environment. Furthermore, for the argued new limitation of the amended independent claims, the limitation of “wherein, for each determined CAD volume extrusion operator, the method further comprises using the CAD volume extrusion operator to detect a corresponding volume closed by extrusion surfaces” is also directed to a mental process. For example, a person can mentally or with a pen and paper identify that the region enclosed by the determined extrusion surfaces is an interior volume and can also determine the value of volume by integrating over the total profile curve comprising of merged segments that enclose a space. This can be done by a person to perform the grouping of segments that enclose the space and mathematical calculations to determine the volume of the space using pencil and paper has an aid, and the applicant is merely claiming that the concept be performed in a computer environment. Therefore, the claims recite and are directed to a mental process.
The examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a mental concept as provided in the rejection above is proper under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claim features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not recite mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations but merely involve calculations (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 14).
MPEP states in §2106.04(a)(2): "a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim.". Additionally, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) recites “Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” as an abstract idea)”; MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) recites “A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping” ; and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) recites that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”.
The examiner has provided the rational for the claim limitations that are being directed to a mathematical concept in the Final Rejection mailed April 2, 2026. The applicant argues that “simply reciting a formula in the claim does not mean the claim is directed to a mathematical concept”. While the examiner did note that the claims recite formulas, the recitation of the formulas alone is not what directs the claim to the abstract idea. The examiner relied up the fact that the claim language of the limitations recite calculating the mathematical differences between objective functions and certain thresholds as well as calculating the total curvature of grouped segments forming a closed curve and the positive or negative value of it for the determination of an extrusion operation. These are mathematical concepts. The formulas used are a recitation of the claim language, which the claim language is direct to mathematical concepts.
As such, this limitation would fall under a mathematical concept in step 2A Prong 1 of analysis above. The examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a mathematical concept as provided in the rejection above under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claim features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application since the claim features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art and as a whole integrate the abstract idea in a practical application (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 15-16).
MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) recites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. MPEP § 2106.04(I) recites “The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was "new". Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea")”. MPEP § 2106.05(I) recites “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”
The improvement to technology and inventive concept cannot be provided by the abstract idea; it must come from an additional element. With regards to claims 3, 10, and 17, the additional element of “obtaining a segmentation of the CAD 3D model, the CAD 3D model including a skin representing an outer surface of the mechanical part, the segmentation comprising segments each representing a skin portion” has been interpreted as receiving a CAD 3D model of a part. Receiving data has been defined by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as well-understood, routine, or conventional. Furthermore, the additional element of “the CAD 3D model being a discrete geometrical representation of the mechanical part and being obtained from a scan of a real-world mechanical part by physically scanning the real-world mechanical part, thereby acquiring physical measurements of the real-world mechanical part, and obtaining the discrete geometrical representation from the physical measurements by a 3D reconstruction process” is also as well understood, routine, and conventional, and such evidence that this additional element is well understood, routine, and conventional has been provided in the rejection above. Therefore, these additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities as defined in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and as such evidence has been provided. Thus no improvement lies in these additional elements nor in combination with the abstract ideas.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a feature that is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the feature is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant argues that the claim features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are more likely to be eligible than not and therefore should not be rejected (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 16-17).
MPEP § 2106.05(I) recites “Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”. MPEP § 2106.05(I) recites “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”.
The examiner would to refer the applicant to the above MPEP citations which demonstrate that the courts recognize the inventive concept is a separate and distinct requirement from novelty. While the claims have been found to be novel, the claims are directed to a judicial exemption, an abstract idea. The claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts which cannot provide the improvement and, while novel, are still an abstract idea. The additional elements are merely using a computer to apply the abstract idea, gathering data, and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities which do not prove any improvement.
The examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a mental processes and mathematical concepts as provided in the rejection above under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang, Zixian, Maria Savchenko, Yixiong Feng, Tatsuya Fukuhisa, Junichi Shinoda, and Ichiro Hagiwara. "Automatic segmentation technique for triangular meshes." Transaction of JSCES 2011 (2011) teaches a partitioning a scanned mesh to extract mesh segments to identify areas of curvature.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 on (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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights