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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment filed 08/21/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
2. Claims 1-4, 7, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nana (“Automatic reconstruction of beam structures from 3D topology optimization results”) in view of Thore (“Penalty regulation of overhang in topology optimization for additive manufacturing”), further in view of Wu (“Design and Optimization of Conforming Lattice Structures”).
As per Claim 1 and 17, Nana teaches a method/ system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause the one or more processors to perform operations (§4, pg. 64 “Integrating TO into an automated structural design procedure represents a highly promising outcome of using TO for computer aided design.”), comprising:
obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, and one or more design criteria for the modeled object (§3, pg. 64 “This volume fraction represents the percentage of the initial design material that is kept along SIMP iterations.”; pg. 65, Fig. 1 “Chair (a) geometry, loads and boundary conditions (b) design (in blue) and non-design (in red) material”; §1, pg. 62 “the reconstructed CAD model should facilitate geometry modifications and reduce manufacturing constraints. In this context, manufacturability of the optimized designs provided by TO methods is a major concern.”: the initial design domain of design and non-design material with its loads and boundary conditions (i.e., the “design space” as claimed) and the volume fraction, loads and boundary conditions (i.e., the “one or more design criteria” as claimed) are obtained for a chair (i.e., the “modeled object” as claimed) that is to be manufactured);
iteratively modifying, by the computer aided design program, a first three-dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the first three-dimensional shape comprises a density-based or a boundary-based representation of the modeled object, (§3, pg. 64 “
PNG
media_image1.png
282
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”: the SIMP iterations update the relative density distribution of the 3D model under the volume-fraction criterion (i.e., the “density-based or a boundary-based representation” as claimed));
wherein the iteratively modifying comprises (§6, pg. 79 “we introduce a second option, which consists in automatically adjusting SIMP volume fraction and re-applying the whole process to fulfill these stress objectives. This new iterative process is presented in Fig. 26.”; Fig. 26, pg. 80
PNG
media_image2.png
405
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
: the iterative process re-applies the whole process, including the reconstruction of the beam structure below, in each pass of the loop. Examiner's Note - “the iteratively modifying comprises forming” corresponds to Nana's loop on the volume fraction because each pass of the loop modifies the SIMP shape and forms the beam structure from it); and
forming a second three-dimensional shape of the modeled object based on the first three-dimensional shape of the modeled object, wherein the second three-dimensional shape conforms to a predefined shape-type requirement, wherein the predefined shape-type requirement is that the second three-dimensional shape is a network of beams connected by junctions (§4.2.2, pg. 67 “
PNG
media_image3.png
248
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”; §4.2.3, pg. 67 “The radius of each beam cross section is calculated by computing, along each curvilinear segment of the skeleton, the mean local Euclidian distance between the segment and the smoothed triangulation.”; §4.2.4, pg. 67 “normalization is a tuning process that simplifies the curve skeleton into a set of straight beams with uniform circular sections.”: the 3D beam structure of straight circular beams meeting at the junction points of the skeleton is generated from the optimized 3D shape (i.e., the “network of beams connected by junctions” as claimed)).
In particular, Nana teaches a fully automated pipeline in which a three-dimensional SIMP topology optimization iteratively updates an element-density field of the design domain, the boundary of the optimized shape is extracted as a triangulation and skeletonised, and the curve skeleton with its junction points is converted into a beam structure of straight circular beams whose radii are computed from the distance between the shape boundary and the skeleton, the beam structure being validated by finite element analysis and the whole process re-applied in a loop on the volume fraction. Nana further teaches that its reconstructed beam structures tend to be less stiff than the rough optimized 3D results because the optimized shape is, in general, neither straight nor circular, nor of constant section along its length (§5.4, pg. 78).
However, Nana fails to teach explicitly penalizing modifications of the first three-dimensional shape that deviate from the second three-dimensional shape, wherein the penalizing comprises applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the density-based or the boundary-based representation, thereby enforcing one or more manufacturability constraints for manufacturing the physical structure; and
providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object, thereby causing manufacturing of the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
Thore teaches penalizing modifications of the first three-dimensional shape that deviate from the second three-dimensional shape, wherein the penalizing comprises applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the density-based or the boundary-based representation, thereby enforcing one or more manufacturability constraints for manufacturing the physical structure (§1, pg. 60 “the overhang free design is compared to the physical design and a penalty term is added to the objective function of the TO problem, which implies a cost for deviation between the physical design and the overhang free design.”; §2, pg. 60 “
PNG
media_image4.png
109
376
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”; §4, Eq. (9), pg. 62: a design conforming to the manufacturing requirement is derived from the physical density design and the penalty on the element-wise difference between the physical design and the derived design drives the physical design toward the derived design, thereby enforcing the manufacturing (overhang) constraint. Examiner's Note - the “beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the density-based or the boundary-based representation” as claimed corresponds to Thore's penalty term on the deviation between the physical design and the derived design because, in the combination, the beam network Nana reconstructs from the optimized shape is the derived design against which the element densities are penalized).
In particular, Thore teaches that a design conforming to a manufacturing requirement is derived from the current physical density design at every evaluation and that, instead of imposing the derived design directly, a penalty on the deviation between the physical design and the derived design is added to the objective function, so that the penalty factor regulates how closely the manufacturing constraint is satisfied by the optimized design.
Nana and Thore are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, computer aided design of physical structures, which can be manufactured using additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing and/or other manufacturing systems and techniques (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Thore into Nana's invention for the purpose of automatic reconstruction of beam structures from 3D topology optimization results to provide a more complete approach that includes the geometric overhang constraints in the TO problem instead of modifying topology-optimized structures without considering optimality of the modified structure, with the choice of penalty factor regulating how closely the overhang constraint is satisfied so that families of solutions gradually approaching satisfaction of the overhang constraint can be generated (Thore: §1, pg. 59; Abstract, pg. 59; §6, pg. 66). This rationale is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143(I)(A); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
However, Nana as modified by Thore fails to teach explicitly providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object, thereby causing manufacturing of the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
On the other hand, Wu teaches providing, by the computer aided design program, the first or second three dimensional shape of the modeled object, thereby causing manufacturing of the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems (pg. 2, Fig. 1, “a globally connected lattice structure is compiled, and fabricated by 3D printing.”; §6.1, pg. 7 “Figure 10 shows fabricated bridge and cantilevers.”; §6.1, pg. 8 “The dimension of models and the thickness of struts are scaled to comply with the volume and feature size of the printer.”: the optimized strut structures output by the design method are fabricated on a stereolithography 3D printer (i.e., one of the “computer-controlled manufacturing systems” as claimed)).
In particular, Wu teaches that the optimized lattice configuration is compiled into a globally connected structure of struts that is then fabricated by 3D printing on a stereolithography printer, the model dimensions and strut thicknesses being scaled to the volume and feature size of the printer.
Nana, Thore, and Wu are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, computer aided design of physical structures, which can be manufactured using additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing and/or other manufacturing systems and techniques (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Wu into Nana as modified by Thore's invention for the purpose of automatic reconstruction of beam structures from 3D topology optimization results to provide a more complete approach that includes the geometric overhang constraints in the TO problem instead of modifying topology-optimized structures without considering optimality of the modified structure, with the choice of penalty factor regulating how closely the overhang constraint is satisfied so that families of solutions gradually approaching satisfaction of the overhang constraint can be generated (Thore: §1, pg. 59; Abstract, pg. 59; §6, pg. 66) and to provide a design method for 3D printing that effectively leverages the fabrication flexibility to create structures with exceptional mechanical properties, the physical tests on the 3D printed specimen confirming the significance of the optimized structure for buckling stability (Wu: §2.2, pg. 2; §6.3, pg. 11). This rationale is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143(I)(A); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
As per Claim 2 and 18, Nana teaches wherein forming the second three-dimensional shape comprises: extracting a graph from the first three-dimensional shape of the modeled object (§4.2.2, pg. 67 “The main principle on which it is based is to iteratively contract the model’s boundary until it reaches zero-volume. The contracted shape is then converted into a curvilinear skeleton.”: the curve skeleton of segments joined at branch, junction and end points is extracted from the smoothed optimized shape (i.e., the “graph” as claimed)); and
generating the second three-dimensional shape from the graph (§4.2.2, pg. 67 “The first and last points of a branch correspond to junction or end points. This information will be later used in the normalization process to transform each branch into a straight beam.”: each branch of the skeleton graph is transformed into a straight beam of the reconstructed beam structure).
As per Claim 3 and 19, Nana teaches wherein generating the second three-dimensional shape from the graph comprises: generating each of the beams of the network of beams from a respective edge of the graph (§4.2.4, pg. 68 “Thus, 10 straight beams are generated from the 10 branches of the curve skeleton.”: each branch of the skeleton graph (i.e., a respective “edge of the graph” as claimed) yields one beam), wherein each of the beams is assigned a circular cross-section of uniform radius along the beam (§4.2.4, pg. 68 “previously composed with a curvilinear beam, is transformed into a straight beam with a uniform cross section along its length. The cross section of each of these straight beams is calculated as the average of cross section radii of beam segments along the curvilinear beam of a branch.”: each straight beam receives one constant circular section, its radius being the average of the local radii along the branch).
As per Claim 4 and 20, Nana teaches wherein the generating comprises one or more of (§4.2.4, pg. 67 “normalization is a tuning process that simplifies the curve skeleton into a set of straight beams with uniform circular sections.”: the normalization step modifies the generated beams):
i) limiting a maximum and/or a minimum value of a beam cross-section of each of the beams of the network of beams;
ii) snapping an angle between connected beams to a snapping angle closest to the angle between the connected beams, wherein the snapping angle is equal to a specified angle value or a multiple of the specified angle value; or
iii) modifying a cross-section of one or more beams of the network of beams to decrease cross-section differences between collinear beams (§4.2.4, pg. 68 “Radius of this new straight beam is calculated as the average value of cross section radii of the 12 beam segments.”; Fig. 6(b) and Fig. 8(a), pp. 68-69: the differing radii of the consecutive beam segments of one branch are replaced by a single averaged cross-section. Examiner's Note - the “collinear beams” as claimed correspond to the consecutive beam segments of a branch because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the segments of a branch that Nana straightens into a single axis are collinear beam segments, and the averaging decreases the cross-section differences between them).
As per Claim 7, Nana teaches wherein the first three-dimensional shape is stored as a shape boundary representation, (§4.1, pg. 65 “The input of our reconstruction approach is the boundary triangulation that represents the optimized shape derived from TO result”; §4.2.1, pg. 67 “These boundaries are extracted from the rough optimized shape as triangulations.”; §4.2.3, pg. 67: the optimized shape is stored and processed as a boundary triangulation (i.e., the “shape boundary representation” as claimed) from which the beams are derived, each beam radius being the mean distance between the triangulation and the skeleton segment).
However, Nana fails to teach explicitly wherein the penalizing comprises applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the shape boundary representation.
Thore teaches wherein the penalizing comprises applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the shape boundary representation (§2, pg. 60 “A penalty term P representing the cost of deviating from an AM-preferred overhang free design is added to form an augmented objective”; §1, pg. 60; §4, Eq. (9), pg. 62: the penalty term measures the deviation between the physical design and the design derived from it; Examiner's Note – the “difference between the network of beams and the shape boundary representation” as claimed corresponds to Thore's deviation between the physical design and the derived design because, for claim 7, the first shape is represented by the boundary triangulation mapped above, the beam network is derived from that triangulation, and the deviation between the two is the distance between the triangulation and the beams that Nana already measures when it sizes each beam; a penalty of Thore's form on that deviation penalizes the recited difference, which is the examiner's reading of the combination for claim 7).
As per Claim 14, Nana fails to teach explicitly wherein one or more beams are assigned a non-circular cross-section, the generating comprising: determining locally optimal orientations for each of the one or more beams using i) a shape of the first three-dimensional shape along a respective edge of the graph, or ii) directions of forces acting on each of the one or more beams, the directions of forces determined from force fields for the first three-dimensional shape.
Wu teaches wherein one or more beams are assigned a non-circular cross-section (§4, pg. 4 “The unit cell is a hollowed square with a side length of l and a thickness of t, which are specified by the user.”; §1, pg. 1 “a hollowed cubic cell with uniform thickness is stiffer along its axes than along its diagonals”: the struts are the walls of hollowed square or cubic cells of a uniform thickness t; Examiner's Note – beams assigned a “non-circular cross-section” as claimed correspond to the walls of Wu's hollowed square or cubic cell because a wall of uniform thickness t bounding a square or cubic hollow has a rectangular section, which is the examiner's reading of Wu's cell geometry); and
the generating comprising: determining locally optimal orientations for each of the one or more beams using shape (§4.2, pg. 5 “the optimal orientation of an orthotropic material coincides with the principal stress directions, hence the element is rotated”; §1, pg. 1: the struts are oriented along the principal stress directions of the stress field of the optimized shape)
i) a shape of the first three-dimensional shape along a respective edge of the graph, or
ii) directions of forces acting on each of the one or more beams, the directions of forces determined from force fields for the first three-dimensional shape (§4.2, pg. 5 “the optimal orientation of an orthotropic material coincides with the principal stress directions, hence the element is rotated”; §1, pg. 1: the struts are oriented along the principal stress directions of the stress field of the optimized shape (i.e., the “force fields for the first three-dimensional shape” as claimed).).
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nana (“Automatic reconstruction of beam structures from 3D topology optimization results”) in view of Thore (“Penalty regulation of overhang in topology optimization for additive manufacturing”), further in view of Wu (“Design and Optimization of Conforming Lattice Structures”), and further in view of Langelaar (“An additive manufacturing filter for topology optimization of print-ready designs”).
Nana as modified by Thore and Wu teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 14, and 17-20 above.
As per Claim 8, Nana as modified by Thore and Wu teaches wherein the iteratively modifying comprises performing an iterative topology optimization process (Nana: §3, pg. 64 “In this paper, structural TO results are obtained using the SIMP method in 3D.”: the SIMP optimization is iterated to convergence).
However, Nana as modified by Thore and Wu fails to teach explicitly increasing a weight of the beam network constraint at least at an end portion of the iterative topology optimization process.
Langelaar teaches increasing a weight of the beam network constraint at least at an end portion of the iterative topology optimization process (§3.4.3, pg. 880 “
PNG
media_image5.png
293
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”: continuation increases the parameter that sets how strictly the manufacturability filter is enforced at iterations 150, 225 and 300 of a 500-iteration run, so that the constraint bears more heavily on the design in the later portion of the optimization. Examiner's Note - “increasing a weight of the beam network constraint” as claimed corresponds to Langelaar's continuation of the parameter controlling the strictness of the manufacturability filter because, in the combination applied to claim 1 above, the manufacturability constraint is Thore's penalty term whose penalty factor regulates how closely the constraint is satisfied, and applying Langelaar's continuation to that factor increases it in the later iterations - this is the examiner's reading of the combination). In particular, Langelaar teaches that a manufacturability filter applied inside the topology optimization is made increasingly strict by applying continuation to its controlling parameter at fixed later iterations of the run, so that non-conforming features are increasingly suppressed toward the end of the optimization rather than removed in post-processing.
Nana, Thore, Wu, and Langelaar are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, computer aided design of physical structures, which can be manufactured using additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing and/or other manufacturing systems and techniques (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Langelaar into Nana as modified by Thore and Wu's invention for the purpose of automatic reconstruction of beam structures from 3D topology optimization results to provide a more complete approach that includes the geometric overhang constraints in the TO problem instead of modifying topology-optimized structures without considering optimality of the modified structure, with the choice of penalty factor regulating how closely the overhang constraint is satisfied so that families of solutions gradually approaching satisfaction of the overhang constraint can be generated (Thore: §1, pg. 59; Abstract, pg. 59; §6, pg. 66) and to provide a design method for 3D printing that effectively leverages the fabrication flexibility to create structures with exceptional mechanical properties, the physical tests on the 3D printed specimen confirming the significance of the optimized structure for buckling stability (Wu: §2.2, pg. 2; §6.3, pg. 11) and to provide a design in which the problematic member has disappeared, as the more strict filter after continuation increasingly suppresses the option for the optimizer to build structures with gradually increasing density, addressing the issue within the optimization itself rather than in post-processing (Langelaar: §3.4.3, pg. 880).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 16 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Morris (“A subtractive manufacturing constraint for level set topology optimization”) teaches obtaining a design domain and load cases for a part to be milled, minimizing an augmented Lagrangian that combines the compliance objective with the volume constraint through a penalty coefficient and a Lagrange multiplier, updating the penalty coefficients until the shape converges, and machining the resulting shape (Morris: §3.3, pg. 5 “defines the objective function F as the average compliance of Ω with respect to at least one load case, and imposes exactly one inequality constraint: namely that the volume of Ω must be less than or equal to some fraction of the volume of the design domain”; §3.1, pg. 4 “After iteratively applying this procedure and also updating the penalty coefficients and the Lagrange multipliers used to define the augmented Lagrangian, the shape converges to a local solution of (1).”; §5.4, pg. 17 “We also validated the output by generating a fully machined version of the result shown at the bottom of Figure 14.”), and
Thore (“Penalty regulation of overhang in topology optimization for additive manufacturing”) teaches an augmented objective that combines a compliance objective function with a penalty term carrying a penalty factor (Thore: §2, pg. 60 “A penalty term P representing the cost of deviating from an AM-preferred overhang free design is added to form an augmented objective”),
none of the prior art of record discloses a dual model shape synthesis for additive manufacturing including:
(Claim 16) “initializing each of the penalty parameters for the one or more constraints using a constraint-specific weight, a shape gradient of the respective constraint, and a shape gradient of the objective function”.
5. Claim 5, 6, 9-13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter:
(Claim 5) “the snapping, which comprises solving an optimization problem on the graph using an objective function that measures differences between i) an angle between connected edges of the graph and ii) the closest snapping angle”
(Claim 6) “the modifying, which comprises iteratively updating a radius of each beam taking into account the angle between a respective edge in the graph and edges connected to the respective edge, using a higher contribution from connected edges that are collinear”
(Claim 9) “a normalization factor that depends on a volume of the design space and on a characteristic size”
(Claim 15) “wherein each of the beams is a curved beam generated by fitting a curve to approximate a medial axis of a portion of the first 3D shape for each respective edge of the graph”
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) a and 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument - Nana (“Automatic reconstruction of beam structures from 3D topology optimization results”) in view of Thore (“Penalty regulation of overhang in topology optimization for additive manufacturing”), further in view of Wu (“Design and Optimization of Conforming Lattice Structures”).
In particular, the new ground relies on Nana for the network of beams connected by junctions: Nana extracts a curve skeleton from the three-dimensional topology-optimized shape, identifies the junction points of that skeleton, and approximates each skeleton branch as a straight beam of circular cross section whose radius is computed from the distance between the boundary of the shape and the skeleton (Nana, §4.2.2 to §4.2.4, pp. 67-68).
Furthermore, with respect to the argument that Thore's penalty function "is expressed entirely in terms of densities" and therefore cannot teach applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the density-based or the boundary-based representation (Remarks, pp. 14-15): It is noted that the rejection does not rely on Thore for the form of the derived design. Thore is relied upon for the teaching that "a penalty term is added to the objective function of the TO problem, which implies a cost for deviation between the physical design and the overhang free design" (Thore, §1, pg. 60), and Thore states that its method "can be used together with any objective or constraint functions" (Thore, §6, pg. 66) while Nana is relied upon for the derived design being a network of beams formed from the first three-dimensional shape.
Also Claim 1 does not recite the representation in which the "difference between the network of beams and the density-based or the boundary-based representation" is computed. Applicant’s argument is more specific than the claim language. Claim 1 recites “wherein the penalizing comprises applying a beam network constraint that penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the density-based or the boundary-based representation.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a penalty term of Thore's form evaluated between the element densities of the physical design and the element densities occupied by Nana's beam network penalizes a difference between the network of beams and the density-based representation of the first three-dimensional shape; how the combination operates is set out above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection relies on Thore for the penalty on the deviation of the physical design from a derived design and on Nana for the derived design being a network of beams formed from the first three-dimensional shape; neither reference is relied upon for the teaching attributed to the other, and the argument that Thore's penalty is expressed in densities does not address the combination.
In response to applicant's argument that it is not apparent how a person of ordinary skill in the art would adapt Thore's density-based penalty function to a method using shapes of different types, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 17 is amended in the same manner as claim 1 and is addressed for the same reasons.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morris, Butscher, and Iorio, "A subtractive manufacturing constraint for level set topology optimization," Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 61 (2020) 1573-1588, teaches level set topology optimization under an augmented Lagrangian whose penalty coefficients and Lagrange multipliers are updated until convergence, with a milling-accessibility constraint enforced by filtering the boundary speed, and is the closest prior art of record for claim 16.
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights