DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to communications on 2/1/2024
Claims 1-20 pending in the application
Claims 1-20 rejected
Priority
Applicant does not claim priority in Application Data Sheet received on 12/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS forms received on 12/15/2022 and 02/01/2024 accepted, reviewed, and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Responsive to amended drawings submitted on 01/10/2023. Examiner confirms that the amended drawings simply correct typographic errors, and do not introduce new matter into the specifications. Drawings are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Abstract received on 12/15/2022 contains less than 150 and contains no legal or implied phraseology. Abstract is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Geometric Shape Primitives: the term geometric shape primitive in the specification seems to refer to a mathematic representation of multiple voxels in the simulation. Par 92: “Instead of using a voxel- based parameterization that requires evaluation of each voxel in the design, the initial design is parameterized using one or more geometric shape primitives, where each geometric shape primitive is large in comparison to the voxels of the structural parameters.” … par 94: “As can be seen, the entire geometric shape primitive 826 can be represented with three scalar values. This is a vast improvement over the voxel-based parameterization, in which each voxel within the geometric shape primitive 826 would be represented with its own value.” As understood by the examiner, this is basically building a design with circles as the “base unit” and defining the design using those shapes, rather than using voxels which represents a smaller unit. This is similar to how conventional design software may define a basic shape, or how one normally skilled in the art would understand the term “geometric shape primitive.” The examiner recommends the applicant define the term “geometric shape primitive” in the claims to better direct the scope of the claim to what the applicant intends. The examiner notes that mostly all modeling designs include “shape primitives,” (where a primitive may be a pixel) and that defining the term in relation to the simulation in the claims would help move prosecution forwards. Furthermore, one ordinarily skilled in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation could interpret a “voxel” as a “primitive,” as it is a smaller unit. In order to best practice compact prosecution, the examiner has not taken such a broad view of the term primitives, but has instead mapped the terms to similar art so that the applicant can better amend the claims in view of the provided references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 11 recite the limitation "at least one of the geometric shape primitives." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim introduces a list of geometric shape primitives, not geometric shape primitives themselves. The examiner interprets the limitation as pertaining to a geometric shape primitive that is present from the list of multiple geometric shape primitives.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites A non-transitory computer-readable medium which is a manufactured product.
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. generating, by the computing system, an initial design based on a design specification, wherein the initial design includes a list of geometric shape primitives;
The process of generating an initial design, where the initial design includes a list of geometric shape primitives, when recited at a high degree of generality without particular recited steps is the process of observing the design specifications, evaluating what designs could support the proper specifications, and using judgement to create an initial design of the device to fit the design specifications using a list of shape primitives. The process of “generation” could involve using a pen and paper to draw the initial design using basic “shape primitives,” or could involve creating a verbal description of a device.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “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.” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Because this claim pertains to observations and evaluations, and can be performed with and without the use of a pen and paper, this claim limitation recites an abstract idea of a mental process
determining, by the computing system, a set of structural parameters using the list of geometric shape primitives;
See par 59: “The structural parameters may correspond, for example, to the specific design, material compositions, dimensions, and the like of the physical device.” The process of determining a set of structural parameters is the process of observing the list of geometric shape primitives, and using judgement to evaluate the different structural parameters to match what a user would like to be tested. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Because this claim pertains to observations and judgements that can be performed in the human mind, this claim limitation recites an abstract idea of a mental process
The claim recites:
simulating, by the computing system, performance of the initial design using the set of structural parameters to determine a performance loss value;
Which states to determine a performance loss value. The performance loss value is a numeric value determined through a performance loss function. See par 79: “Once the final time step of the simulation portion 750 is performed, a performance loss function 720 is used to determine a performance loss value 722 associated with the selected initial design 706.” As claimed, this loss value is determined based on a simulation by the computing system. This is the usage of a simulation to gain data, and the usage of said data to perform a mathematic calculation to determine a value. This simulation when recited broadly and in light of the specifications is an “adjoint simulation (e.g., backpropagation)” which is a recitation of a mathematic function.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Therefore, while this claim does not recite the words “calculating” it is determined by the examiner that “simulating” and “determine” steps in the above claim encompass mathematic calculations, and Therefore this limitation recites an abstract idea.
and updating, by the computing system, at least one of a size or a location of at least one of the geometric shape primitives using a gradient of the performance loss value.
Updating a size or location of the geometric shape primitives using a mathematic gradient of the performance loss value, is the use of a mathematic value to calculate new terms to use in the mathematic simulation. See par 82-83
PNG
media_image1.png
420
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Therefore this limitation recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, while the size and location of geometric shape primitives corresponded to the mental process of generating a design, the “MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. “
Therefore, the updating step of this claim limitation recites a mathematic calculation. And this claim limitation pertains to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform actions for designing a physical device, the actions comprising:
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Because this limitation adds computer components to an abstract idea, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
simulating, by the computing system, performance of the initial design using the set of structural parameters to determine a performance loss value; and updating, by the computing system, at least one of a size or a location of at least one of the geometric shape primitives using a gradient of the performance loss value.
The MPEP 2106.05 (e) states “The analysis of whether the claim includes other meaningful limitations may be relevant for both eligibility analysis Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B.” As stated above, the simulation step, determination step, and updating steps are all understood as parts of the judicial exceptions relating to abstract ideas. Therefore, this claim does not contain other limitations which are relevant under step 2 prong 2 analysis.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Because this limitation adds computer components to an abstract idea, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore this claim limitation does not provide significantly more.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein determining the set of structural parameters includes determining a signed distance field for each geometric shape primitive.
See par 100:
PNG
media_image2.png
320
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The determination of a signed distance field for each geometric shape primitive in light of the specifications is a mathematic calculation based on geometry. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” The examiner understands this step of “determining a signed distance field” to be a recitation of a mathematic calculation. Therefore this claim is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 3:The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2,
wherein determining the set of structural parameters includes projecting each of the signed distance fields onto a density field.
See par 101: “Values at corresponding positions of each signed distance field may be added to the corresponding voxels of the density field, such that all of the signed distance fields are combined into the single density field to create the structural parameters 708 for the simulated environment 606.” In light of the specifications, projecting each of the signed distance fields into a density field encompasses the process of performing a matrix/geometric calculation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Therefore this claim is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 4:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the geometric shape primitives are circles.
This limitation pertains to the initial design being based on geometric shape primitives. The fact that the primitives are circles does not take the outlined process away from an abstract idea, and therefore this limitation pertains to the abstract idea of claim 1. The examiner would also like to make note that circles are well known shapes, and the claim does not claim a unique or physical improvement towards a device through the usage of specifically circles. Therefore this claim is a further recitation of the abstract idea of determining an initial design.
Claim 5:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 4,
wherein updating the at least one of the size or the location of at least one of the geometric shape primitives using the gradient of the performance loss value includes using a fabrication loss value as a constraint.
As already outlined in claim 3, this updating step is the recitation of a mathematic calculation. This fabrication loss value is understood as a constraint term in the equation which takes into account fabrication difficulties. See par 120: “Since the fabrication constraints illustrated in FIG. 11 can be computed very efficiently, a separate optimization for fabricability may be applied along with (or interleaved with) the optimization for performance without greatly increasing the amount of time and/or computing power utilized for the optimization. In some embodiments, the list of geometric shape primitives may be represented as a single vector of the coordinates that make up each geometric shape primitive (e.g., a vector of values for the radius, x coordinate, and y coordinate for each circle), combined with the buffer constraints (e.g., a vector c wherein c = [dig,bi, b2, b3], and d={r,x, y}). By rearranging the buffer constraints to be satisfied when they are negative (e.g., for the buffer constraint illustrated in second design region 1104, dmin - this vector can be optimized to obtain a fabricable design.“ Whereas illustrated and implied, the use of fabrication loss as a constraint is the updating/optimizing of the geometric primitives vector with the buffer constraints vector. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) states “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, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Therefore this claim is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 6:The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5,
wherein the fabrication loss value represents at least a minimum feature size, and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined at least in part by comparing a radius of each geometric shape primitive to a threshold size.
This limitation pertains to the fabrication loss value of claim 5, which the usage of the fabrication loss value was determined to be a recitation of a mathematic calculation. Furthermore, the fabrication loss value representing a minimum feature size determined by comparing the radius is a further abstract idea of a comparison. See figure 11. This limitation encompasses a user observing different size circles, and evaluating if each circle is bigger than a minimum threshold size. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Furthermore MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping.
PNG
media_image3.png
437
1095
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Because this claim uses the mental process of a comparison, this claim is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 7:The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5,
wherein the fabrication loss value represents at least a minimum distance, and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined at least in part by pairwise differences between vectors representing centers of geometric shape primitives and radii of the geometric shape primitives.
This limitation pertains to the fabrication loss value of claim 5, which the usage of the fabrication loss value was determined to be a recitation of a mathematic calculation. Furthermore, the fabrication loss value representing a minimum distance determined by pairwise differences between vectors and radii is a further abstract idea of a mathematic calculation. See figure 11. This is vector calculations being performed to measure the distance between two points, which can reasonably be performed in the mind of an individual reasonably skilled in the art.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “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.” Furthermore, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping.
PNG
media_image4.png
434
1144
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore because this claim pertains to math that can be performed by an individually reasonably skilled in the art with a pen and paper. this claim is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 8:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5,
wherein the fabrication loss value represents at least a boundary buffer, and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined at least in part by comparing coordinates of a center of each geometric shape primitive to threshold locations defined by a boundary buffer size.
This limitation pertains to the fabrication loss value of claim 5, which the usage of the fabrication loss value was determined to be a recitation of a mathematic calculation. Furthermore, the fabrication loss value representing a boundary budder determined by comparing the center of each shape to a threshold based on boundary buffer size is a further abstract idea of a comparison. See figure 11. This claim encompassed user observing each circle and evaluating if it is far enough away from the border.
The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Furthermore MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping.
PNG
media_image5.png
446
1129
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore this claim is a further recitation of an abstract idea of a comparison.
Claim 9:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 4,
wherein the actions further comprise changing at least one radius of at least one geometric shape primitive to simulate dilation or erosion of a corresponding feature during fabrication. These geometric shape primitive structural features as understood by the specifications encompass a vector. See par 120: “In some embodiments, the list of geometric shape primitives may be represented as a single vector of the coordinates that make up each geometric shape primitive (e.g., a vector of values for the radius, x coordinate, and y coordinate for each circle.” As understood by the examiner, changing at least one radius is changing a vector value corresponding to a radius. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) states “A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma). ” The examiner views the term “changing” to be a textual replacement for an equation which modifies a relationship between the simulation equations and the new vector representing radius. Therefore this claim is a further recitation of an abstract idea.
Claim 10:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the actions further comprise transmitting the list of geometric shape primitives to a fabrication system for fabricating the physical device.
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” The list of geometric shape primitives is a form of data. Therefore, simply transmitting this data does not integrate the judicial exception or provide significant more.
Claim 11:Claim 11 is an effective duplicate of claim 1. Claim 11 is directed to A computer-implemented method which is a process.
Additionally claim 11 states A computer-implemented method for designing a physical device, the method comprising:
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” The use of a computer to perform the method of an abstract idea does not integrate the exception nor provide significantly more. Therefore this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is an effective copy of claim 2 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2 and 11.
Claim 13:Claim 13 is an effective copy of claim 3 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3 and 11.
Claim 14:Claim 14 is an effective copy of claim 4 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 and 11.
Claim 15:Claim 15 is an effective duplicate to claim 5 except that it depends on claim 11. Additionally claim 15 includes the limitation of “circles” which was not present in the original claim 5. However, claim 5 depends on claim 4 which states that the shapes are “circles,” therefore the scope is equivalent. Claim 15 also states “loss vector” as opposed to “loss value.” However, both are mathematic terms and neither overcome the 101.
Therefore claim 15 is rejected under a similar rational to claims 5 and 11.
Claim 16:Claim 16 is an effective copy of claim 6 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6 and 11.
Claim 17:Claim 17 is an effective copy of claim 7 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7 and 11.
Claim 18:Claim 18 is an effective copy of claim 8 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning as claim 8 and 11.
Claim 19:Claim 19 is an effective copy of claim 9 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning as claim 9 and 11.
Claim 20:Claim 20 is an effective copy of claim 10 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning as claim 10 and 11.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No.US 20250036843 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined in the table shown below
Claim 2 Instant Application:
Claim 1 US 20250036843 A1
Notes
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform actions for designing a physical device, the actions comprising:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having logic stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, causes the computing system to perform actions for designing a physical device, the actions comprising:
Where the terms “computer executable instructions: and “logic stored” is considered functionally equivalent under broadest reasonable interpretation.
generating, by the computing system, an initial design based on a design specification, wherein the initial design includes a list of geometric shape primitives
generating, by the computing system, an initial design based on a design specification, wherein the initial design includes a list of features, and wherein each feature of the list of features represents a convex shape;
Where the examiner interprets the instant applications “shape primitives” to be broader genus which encompasses the specific species of a “convex shape”
determining, by the computing system, a set of structural parameters using the list of geometric shape primitives.
wherein determining the set of structural parameters includes determining a signed distance field for each geometric shape primitive.
determining, by the computing system, a set of signed distance fields that includes a signed distance field for each feature of the list of features; determining, by the computing system, a set of structural parameters using the set of signed distance fields
Where the examiner interprets these limitations to be functionally equivalent and thus obvious over each other.
simulating, by the computing system, performance of the initial design using the set of structural parameters to determine a performance loss value
simulating, by the computing system, performance of the initial design using the set of structural parameters to determine a performance loss value;
determining, by the computing system, at least one fabrication loss value using the set of signed distance fields;
Where this instant application is broader
and updating, by the computing system, at least one of a size or a location of at least one of the geometric shape primitives using a gradient of the performance loss value.
and updating, by the computing system, at least one feature of the list of features using the at least one fabrication loss value and a gradient of the performance loss value.
Where this instant application is broader due to the lack of recitation of a “fabrication loss value”
Where updating a feature list (that contains convex shapes species) makes obvious updating a size or location of a shape primitive genus from this instant application.
Where as outlined above, 2 is obvious over on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.US 20250036843 A1. Claim 1 is also rejected due to being broader through the same reasoning as shown in the table above. Claims 11 and 12 are effective duplicates of claims 1 and 2, and are therefore rejected under the same rational as above.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.US 20250036843 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined in the table shown below
Claim 3 instant application
Claim 4 US 20250036843 A1
Notes
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2, wherein determining the set of structural parameters includes projecting each of the signed distance fields onto a density field.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the at least one fabrication loss value includes a value that represents compliance with a minimum distance, and wherein determining the at least one fabrication loss value includes: ballooning each signed distance field of the set of signed distance fields by half of a minimum distance value; projecting each ballooned signed distance field onto an individual density field to create a set of individual density fields; generating a sum of the individual density fields to create a combined density field; and generating the value that represents compliance with the minimum distance by processing the combined density field using an activation function.
Where this instant application claim 3 genus of “projecting each of the signed distance fields onto a density field. ” is broader than claim 4 “ballooning each signed distance field of the set of signed distance fields by half of a minimum distance value; projecting each ballooned signed distance field onto an individual density field to create a set of individual density fields; generating a sum of the individual density fields to create a combined density field”
Where as outlined above, claim 3 is obvious over on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.US 20250036843 A1. Where claim 13 is an effective duplicate of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.US 20250036843 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined in the table shown below
Claim 10 instant application
Claim 10 US 20250036843 A1
Notes
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the actions further comprise transmitting the list of geometric shape primitives to a fabrication system for fabricating the physical device.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the actions further comprise transmitting the list of features to a fabrication system for fabricating the physical device.
Whereas interpreted previously, the geometric shape primitives list in this instant application is broader than the shape of features outlined in US 20250036843 A1
Where as outlined above, claim 10 is obvious over on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.US 20250036843 A1. Where claim 20 is an effective duplicate of claim 10 and is rejected under a similar rational.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210149109 A1 “TWO-CHANNEL INTEGRATED PHOTONIC WAVELENGTH DEMULTIPLEXER” (Schubert_2021) In view of WO 2020005274 A1 “TRACKING A TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AN EDITABLE TOPOLOGY” (Arisoy_2020)
Claim 1:Schubert_2021 makes obvious A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform actions for designing a physical device, the actions comprising: (par 82: “FIG. 8 shows an example method 800 for generating a design of a photonic integrated circuit, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. It is appreciated that method 800 is an inverse design process that may be accomplished by performing operations with a system (e.g., system 500 of FIG. 5) to perform iterative optimization of a loss metric determined from a loss function that includes a performance loss and a fabrication loss. In the same or other embodiments, method 800 may be included as instructions provided by at least one machine-accessible storage medium (e.g., non-transitory memory) that, when executed by a machine, will cause the machine to perform operations for generating the design of the photonic integrated circuit.”)
generating, by the computing system, an initial design based on a design specification, wherein the initial design includes a list of geometric shape
See Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment (Examiner note: an initial design) to be Representative of Initial Description (Examiner note: design specifications) of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810)
Par 83: “Block 810 illustrates configuration a simulated environment to be representative of an initial description of a photonic integrated circuit (e.g., photonic device) that has been received or otherwise obtained. In some embodiments, the photonic integrated circuit may be expected to have a certain functionality (e.g., perform as an optical demultiplexer) after optimization. The initial description may describe structural parameters of the photonic integrated circuit within a simulated environment. The simulated environment may include a plurality of voxels that collectively describe the structural parameters of the photonic device. Examiner note: Where the simulated environment (initial design) includes structural parameters.
Par 64: “ Each of the plurality of voxels (Examiner note: Where a plurality of voxels is a list) 610 may be associated with a structural value, a field value, and a source value. Collectively, the structural values of the simulated environment 601 describe the structural parameters of the photonic device. In one embodiment, the structural values may correspond to a relative permittivity, permeability, and/or refractive index that collectively describe structural (i.e., material) boundaries or interfaces of the photonic device (e.g., interface pattern 431 of FIG. 4B).” Examiners note: Where the structural parameters correspond to interface patterns.
Par 46: “ FIGS. 4A-4L illustrate more detailed cross-sectional views of dispersive region 430 within an active layer (e.g., active layer 306 of FIG. 3B) included in a photonic demultiplexer 420 and the corresponding material interface pattern within the dispersive region 430 formed by the arrangement of a first material 421 (e.g., black colored regions within dispersive region 430 that may correspond to silicon) and a second material 423 (e.g., white colored regions within dispersive region 430 that may correspond to silicon dioxide). … Further, it is appreciated that certain elements of demultiplexer 420 may be omitted or otherwise be unlabeled for FIGS. 4A-4L (e.g., FIGS. 4C-4L do not illustrate input region 402, output regions 404, peripheral region 430, and the like). The structure within the dispersive region 430 of the various embodiments illustrated in FIGS. 4A-4L may include protrusions, islands, dendritic shapes, or other shapes and structures as illustrated. It is appreciated that in other embodiments there may be no protrusions, there may be no islands, there may be no dendritic structures, or there may be any number, including zero, of protrusions, islands of any material included in the dispersive region 430, dendritic structures, or a combination thereof.” Examiner note: Where the interface pattern includes a pattern of island shapes.
determining, by the computing system, a set of structural parameters using the list of geometric shape
par 63-64: “FIG. 6A illustrates a demonstrative simulated environment 601-A describing a photonic integrated circuit (i.e., a photonic device such as a waveguide, demultiplexer, and the like), in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. More specifically, in response to receiving an initial description of a photonic device defined by one or more structural parameters (e.g., an input design), a system (e.g., system 500 of FIG. 5) configures a simulated environment 601 to be representative of the photonic device. As illustrated, the simulated environment 601 (and subsequently the photonic device) is described by a plurality of voxels 610, which represent individual elements (i.e., discretized) of the two-dimensional (or other dimensionality) space. Each of the voxels is illustrated as two-dimensional squares; however, it is appreciated that the voxels may be represented as cubes or other shapes in three-dimensional space. It is appreciated that the specific shape and dimensionality of the plurality of voxels 610 may be adjusted dependent on the simulated environment 601 and photonic device being simulated. It is further noted that only a portion of the plurality of voxels 610 are illustrated to avoid obscuring other aspects of the simulated environment 601. Each of the plurality of voxels 610 may be associated with a structural value, a field value, and a source value. Collectively, the structural values of the simulated environment 601 describe the structural parameters of the photonic device. “ Examiner note: Where the set of voxels encompasses a set of structural parameters that is tested using the list of geometric shapes.
simulating, by the computing system, performance of the initial design using the set of structural parameters to determine a performance loss value;
Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment (Examiner note: an initial design) to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825) Examiner note: where the operational simulation is done with the voxels, which are the set of structural parameters as mapped above.
Par 83: “Thus, in some embodiments an initial description may be a first description of the physical device described within the context of the simulated environment (e.g., a first input design for performing a first operational simulation).”
and updating, by the computing system, at least one of a size or a location of at least one of the geometric shape
Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825). “Backpropagate loss metric through simulated environment to determine structural gradient” (830) “Revise design of Photonic Integrated Circuit by Updating Structural Parameters to adjust a loss metric” (835) Examiner note: Where updating structural parameters when the structural parameters includes an interface pattern of shapes makes obvious updating a size or location of said shape. Especially when the shape encompasses a pattern of circle islands, where the only method of updating said shape could be changing the size or location. See par 47: “ In the embodiments of dispersive region 430 illustrated in FIGS. 4A-4L, the material interface pattern (e.g., 432, 434, 436, 438, 440, and 442) formed by the first material 421 and the second material 423 is shaped to enforce the minimum feature size with a specified shape. In one embodiment, interfaces formed by the first material 421 and the second material 423 may be shaped such that a radius of curvature defining any given radius of a material interface within the dispersive region 430 has a magnitude of less than a threshold size. For example, if the minimum feature size is 150 nm, the radius of curvature for any of the plurality of interfaces have a magnitude of less than the threshold size, which corresponds the inverse of half the minimum feature size (i.e., 1/75 nm.sup.−1). In other embodiments, the minimum feature size may include a minimum feature shape (e.g., a square, circle, hexagon, octagon, or any other shape) having a width corresponding to the minimum feature size (e.g., 100 nm, 140 nm, 150 nm, 180 nm, or otherwise). Thus, any portion of the first material 421 and the second material 423 may be structured within the dispersive region 430 such that the minimum feature shape (e.g., an octagon Examiner note: or circles) with a width of the minimum feature size may be used to form (e.g., draw, paint, or otherwise construct a design representative of the structure) the dispersive region 430.” Examiner note: Where this passage makes obvious the use of only circles in the interface pattern. Where updating these circles would necessitate a change in size or location.
Par 93: “Block 830 illustrates backpropagating the loss metric via the loss function through the simulated environment to determine an influence of changes in the structural parameters on the loss metric (i.e., structural gradient).”
Schubert_2021 does not expressly recite
Arisoy_2020 however, makes obvious (par 7: “In an embodiment, the topology tracking agent at topology tracking stage 131 may instantiate a primitive 151 , such as a 3D shape that may be spherical, conical, cylindrical, prismic, toroidal, for example or any such shape that is readily available among common CAD tool applications.”)
par 7: “In an embodiment, the primitive may be stored as a set of parameters associated with the shape of the primitive, such as shape type, dimensions, including radius and/or length, width, depth, and center point location.”)
(par 8: “During the topology optimization process, the CAD model geometry of the design space may change by growing, shrinking, or by the creation of new voids. Returning to FIG. 1 , at topology optimization stage 122, void regions 142 are produced, which is a geometry change to the void region 141. The topology tracking agent observes the new void regions 142, stores the size and location information and modifies the primitive 151 to generate primitive set 152, which includes a circumscribing primitive for each of void regions 142. The parameters for the primitive set may be stored by the topology tracking agent for step-wise management of a cumulative geometry representation of the topology optimization.”)
Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called structure optimization.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020.
The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the art. Schubert_2021 makes obvious a workflow for designing a photonic device through an iterative optimization process. Arisoy_2020 similarly teaches a more generic optimization process for tracking changes to a topology, which applies to the invention of Schubert_2021. Arisoy_2020 states “While currently available topology optimization tools can generate an optimized design model, editing that design model requires post processing by a manual reverse modelling that is tedious, time consuming, and imprecise. Due to the complexity of the topology optimization results, (e.g., a topology having complex internal void regions) it is very difficult to re-create CAD geometry using the tools available today. An automatic topology recovery of an optimized design according to the embodiments of this disclosure may include instantiating parametric primitive shapes, such as 3D solids, in a step-wise manner to represent geometry changes in parallel with each stage of a topology optimization process. For example, the primitive shapes may represent discrete sections of voids within the model as each change to the topology occurs during the optimization. By tracking the topology optimization and modifying the parametric primitive shapes along the way, a cumulative parametric geometry may be constructed that is ready for editing by conventional CAD tools.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the photonic optimization model of Schubert_2021 with the use of shape primitives of Arisoy_2020 for the benefit of allowing improved post-processing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 4:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the geometric shape primitives (see claim 1)
Schubert_2021 makes obvious are circles.
par 47: “ In the embodiments of dispersive region 430 illustrated in FIGS. 4A-4L, the material interface pattern (e.g., 432, 434, 436, 438, 440, and 442) formed by the first material 421 and the second material 423 is shaped to enforce the minimum feature size with a specified shape. In one embodiment, interfaces formed by the first material 421 and the second material 423 may be shaped such that a radius of curvature defining any given radius of a material interface within the dispersive region 430 has a magnitude of less than a threshold size. For example, if the minimum feature size is 150 nm, the radius of curvature for any of the plurality of interfaces have a magnitude of less than the threshold size, which corresponds the inverse of half the minimum feature size (i.e., 1/75 nm.sup.−1). In other embodiments, the minimum feature size may include a minimum feature shape (e.g., a square, circle, hexagon, octagon, or any other shape) having a width corresponding to the minimum feature size (e.g., 100 nm, 140 nm, 150 nm, 180 nm, or otherwise). Thus, any portion of the first material 421 and the second material 423 may be structured within the dispersive region 430 such that the minimum feature shape (e.g., an octagon Examiner note: or circles) with a width of the minimum feature size may be used to form (e.g., draw, paint, or otherwise construct a design representative of the structure) the dispersive region 430.” Examiner note: Where this passage makes obvious the use of only circles in the interface pattern.
5. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 4,
wherein updating the at least one of the size or the location of at least one of the geometric shape primitives using the gradient of the performance loss value includes (see claim 1)
Schubert_2021 makes obvious using a fabrication loss value as a constraint.
Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825). “Backpropagate loss metric through simulated environment to determine structural gradient” (830) “Revise design of Photonic Integrated Circuit by Updating Structural Parameters to adjust a loss metric” (835)
Par 90: “Block 825 shows determining a loss metric based on a performance loss associated with a performance metric and a fabrication loss associated with a minimum feature size. In some embodiments the loss metric is determined via a loss function that includes both the performance loss and the fabrication loss as input values”
Examiner note: Where this acts as a constraint. See Par 47: “ Enforcement of such a minimum feature size and/or shape prevents the inverse design process from generating designs that are not fabricable by considering manufacturing constraints, limitations, and/or yield”
6. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5,
Schubert_2021 makes obvious wherein the fabrication loss value represents at least a minimum feature size,
Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825). “Backpropagate loss metric through simulated environment to determine structural gradient” (830) “Revise design of Photonic Integrated Circuit by Updating Structural Parameters to adjust a loss metric” (835)
and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined at least in part by comparing a radius of each geometric shape primitive to a threshold size.
Par 47: “In one embodiment, interfaces formed by the first material 421 and the second material 423 may be shaped such that a radius of curvature defining any given radius of a material interface within the dispersive region 430 has a magnitude of less than a threshold size. “ … Par 92: “This process of determining the fabrication loss may promote structural elements of the design region having a radius of curvature less having a magnitude of less than a threshold size (i.e., inverse of half the minimum feature size).”
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is an effective duplicate to claim 1. Where Schubert_2021 teaches the additional limitations of A computer-implemented method for designing a physical device, the method comprising: (par 16: “Embodiments of photonic integrated circuits, including a multi-channel photonic demultiplexer, as well as a method for generating a design of photonic integrated circuits are described herein”). Therefore claim 11 is rejected under a similar rational to claim 1.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is an effective duplicate to claim 4 except that it depends on claim 11. Therefore claim 14 is rejected under a similar rational to claims 4 and 11.
Claim 15:Claim 15 is an effective duplicate to claim 5 except that it depends on claim 14. Additionally claim 15 includes the limitation of “circles” which was not present in the original claim 5. However, claim 5 depends on claim 4 which states that the shapes are “circles,” therefore the scope is equivalent. Claim 15 also states “loss vector” as opposed to “loss value.” Schubert_2021 makes obvious both terms over each other. See par 64: “The field value describes the field (or loss) response that is calculated (e.g., via Maxwell's equations) in response to an excitation source described by the source value. The field response, for example, may correspond to a vector describing the electric and/or magnetic fields (e.g., in one or more orthogonal directions) at a particular time step for each of the plurality of voxels 610.”
Therefore claim 15 is rejected under a similar rational to claims 5 and 14.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is an effective duplicate to claim 6 except that it depends on claim 15. Therefore claim 16 is rejected under a similar rational to claims 6 and 15.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of WO 2022174322 A1 “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR 3D PRINTING” (Hambleton_2022) as motivated by “Additive manufacturing for the development of optical/photonic systems and components” (Berglund_2022)
Claim 2:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein determining the set of structural parameters includes (see claim 1)
Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite determining a signed distance field for each geometric shape primitive.
Hambleton_2022 however makes obvious determining a signed distance field for each geometric shape primitive. (par 47: “At least one of the generators may apply signed distance fields (SDF) or implicit surfaces, such that the generator is or creates a SDF representation of the complex geometry. For example, a very simple generator is one for rendering a box (such as a cube). The input to the box generator is a sequence of 19 numbers (i.e. bounds of the box and its position/orientation in space), as well as the hardware state of the associated printer assembly 14. The code of the box generator uses the inputs to calculate the shortest distance from the box to any other point. Points inside the box will have a negative distance, points on the boundary of the box will have distance of 0, and points outside the box will have a positive distance. This measurement is known as the "signed distance")
Par 44: “Example generators include: (1) Winding number calculation (which does not require hardware state); (2) Inverse Distance Transform to define an SDF based on primitives;”
Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Hambleton_2022 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called designing a physical device. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Hambleton_2022.
The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation as proposed in the prior art. Hambleton_2022 states par 88 “Use of SDFs is robust because they do not depend on meshes having these conditions in order to produce a well-defined result (Examiner note: for 3D printing)” and par 83: “According to method 400, at least one of the generators applies signed distance fields (SDF) or implicit surfaces to the inputs to create a SDF representation of the complex geometry.” The prior art of Schubert_2021 creates designs for photonic devices using complex geometry which may pose issues when printing or fabricating using a non SDF approach. Berglund_2022 page 634 states “additive manufacturing methods are an emerging force in the area of optics and photonics. They allow freedom of design form, integration of approaches, and new design concepts.” When using an additive approach for photonic devices as outlined by Berglung_2022 to design new forms, such as those created in the workflow of Schubert_2021, one would be motivated to use signed distance fields as taught by Hamletone_2022 in order to map complex geometry and produce a well defined result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow of designing free and new concepts of photonic devices using geometric shape primitives of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the use of signed distance fields of Hambleton_2022 for the benefit of representing complex geometry and producing a well-defined result when 3d printing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 3
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2, wherein determining the set of structural parameters
Hambleton_2022 makes obvious includes projecting each of the signed distance fields onto a density field.
(par 53: “A common set of generators that work together to produce the final image is set out below:
- SDF Box generator A: creates a greyscale image that represents the SDF of a box at some location,
- SDF Box generator B: creates a greyscale image that represents the SDF of a box at some other location,
- SDF Union generator: uses the output of A and B and combines them into one greyscale image that represents the union SDF of the two boxes,
- Threshold generator: uses the output of the Union (i.e. a greyscale image) and decides which pixels should be fully white or fully black. This used to cure the resin.
“) Examiner note: Where the examiner interprets this to be projecting each of the signed distance fields into a density field in light of the specifications. See par 101 of the instant application specifications “Values at corresponding positions of each signed distance field may be added to the corresponding voxels of the density field, such that all of the signed distance fields are combined into the single density field to create the structural parameters 708 for the simulated environment 606.”
Whereas stated previously it would have been obvious to combine the workflow of designing free and new concepts of photonic devices using geometric shape primitives of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the use of signed distance fields of Hambleton_2022 for the benefit of representing complex geometry and producing a well-defined result when 3d printing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is an effective duplicate of claim 2 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 2 and 11.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is an effective duplicate of claim 3 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 3 and 11.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of “Finding the distance between two circles” (StackOverflow_2011)
Claim 7:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5,wherein the fabrication loss value (see claim 5)
Schuber_2021 makes obvious represents at least a minimum distance, (par 47: “In the same or other embodiments, different or additional checks on metrics related to fabricability may be utilized to enforce a minimum width or spacing as a minimum feature size.”)
and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined
Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite
StackOverflow_2011 makes obvious at least in part by pairwise differences between vectors representing centers of geometric shape primitives and radii of the geometric shape primitives. (page 2: Calculate the distance between each circles center point, then subtract the radius' of each circle from that.
For the purpose of a demonstration, we will assume the following:
The 200px diameter (r1 = 100) circle is at the (x, y) coordinates of (0, 0), and
the 100px diameter (r2 = 50) circle is at (x, y) coordinates of (150, -150). (Examiner note: Can be represented by vectors)
Given that the distance between their centers is:
PNG
media_image6.png
30
248
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To find the distance between their boundaries, we subtract the radius of each circle from the distance between their centers.
This leaves us with the equation:
sqrt((x2 − x1)^2 + (y2 − y1)^2) − (r2 + r1)) (Examiner note: where this is a pairwise difference in the xy plane. )
Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and StackOverflow_2011 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called topology optimization. Where StackOverflow_2011 teaches relevant geometry calculations which apply to topology optimization that one ordinarily skilled in the art would know. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and StackOverflow_2011. The rationale for doing so would have been obvious to try. Schuber_2021 makes obvious using spacing as a metric for a fabrication loss value, where the feature elements encompass circles. StackOverflow_2011 provides a method of calculating the distance between two circles geometrically. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize using a mathematical formula would allow them to get the distance between the two geometrical primitives, and it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art that taking the difference between the center of each point and subtracting the radius would provide the distance between two circles. This is geometric math that one ordinarily skilled in the art would know or be able to perform. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and fabrication loss of geometric primitives of Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the geometric calculation of distance between circles of StackOverflow_2011 for the obvious result of determining the distance between the circle geometric primitives to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 17:Claim 17 is an effective duplicate of claim 7 except that it depends on claim 15, and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 7 and 15.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of US 20080293333 A1 “METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING THE SIZE OF AN EDGE EXCLUSION ZONE OF A SUBSTRATE” (Zhang_2008), " Distance Between Line and Circle” (MathStackExchange_2015),
Claim 8:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the fabrication loss value represents (see claim 5)
Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite at least a boundary buffer,
and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined at least in part by
Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite comparing coordinates of a center of each geometric shape primitive to threshold locations defined by a boundary buffer size.
Zhang_2008 however makes obvious at least a boundary buffer, (“par 38: “Turning to FIG. 1, a schematic cross-sectional view of a portion of a substrate 100 is provided. The substrate 100 may include two major surfaces 102, 102', and an edge 104. Each major surface 102, 102' of the substrate 100 may include a device region 106, 106' upon which devices may be fabricated, and an exclusion region 108, 108' (termed `edge exclusion zone` herein) upon which device fabrication is not meant to occur. “)
Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Zhang_2008 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called designing a physical device. Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 teach optimization methods for designing a device, and Zhang_2008 teaches a method for manufacturing of physical devices. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Zhang_2008.
The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the art.
Zhang_2008 par 39 outlines the importance of buffer zones for designing devices, particularly in fabrication. “Because the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' occupy space unavailable for device fabrication, the width of the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' tends to be minimized to increase product yield. However, if the widths of the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' are too small, the zones 108, 108' may no longer operate adequately as buffers, and the device regions 106, 106' may be accidentally polished or otherwise adversely affected by edge polishing processes due to the close proximity between the edge 104 and the device regions 106, 106'. Moreover, the optimal width of the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' may vary based on the size and type of substrate, the fabrication processes to be performed on the substrate, and/or other end-user specifications, which may be stringent. Thus, it is useful to have precise control over the width of the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' to avoid unnecessary losses in yield while still maintaining the buffering function of the zones 108, 108', and also to meet any other end-use requirements.” The prior art of Schuber_2021 teaches fabrication constraints par 47:” Enforcement of such a minimum feature size and/or shape prevents the inverse design process from generating designs that are not fabricable by considering manufacturing constraints.” When using the optimization design of Schuber_2021 which accounts for fabrication constraints when designing a device that requires an edge exclusion zone, the inventor of Schuber_2021 would be motivated to include a constraint that accounts for those zones. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the device design workflow of Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the edge exclusion in fabrication of Zhang_2008 for the benefit of ensuring an optimal width of edge exclusion zones for fabrication processes to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Zhang_2008 do not expressly recite comparing coordinates of a center of each geometric shape primitive to threshold locations defined by a boundary buffer size.
MathStackExchange_2015 however makes obvious comparing coordinates of a center of each geometric shape primitive to threshold locations defined by a boundary buffer size. (page 1 : “Geometrically, the shortest distance from a circle to a straight line is the from the center of the circle perpendicular to the line.”)
MathStackExchange_2015 is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is mathematics that is applied to geometry and vector calculations as used in the claimed invention. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, Zhang_2008, and MathStackExchange_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been “obvious to try.” As outlined above, the user of Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Zhang_2008 would need to measure if a shape primitive is inside an exclusion zone. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the usage of basic geometry to calculate “the shortest distance” from a circle to an edge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and edge buffer of Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, Zhang_2008 with the use of geometry to detect if a circle is within an edge of MathStackExchange_2015 for an obvious result obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is an effective duplicate of claim 8 except that it depends on claim 15, and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 8 and 15.
Claims 9 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of “Robust design of topology-optimized metasurfaces” (Wang_2019)
Claim 9:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 4, wherein the actions further comprise
Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite changing at least one radius of at least one geometric shape primitive to simulate dilation or erosion of a corresponding feature during fabrication.
Wang_2019 however, makes obvious changing at least one radius of at least one geometric shape primitive to simulate dilation or erosion of a corresponding feature during fabrication.
PNG
media_image7.png
540
987
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiners notes: Where as understood by the examiner, the edge deviation outlined in fig. 6 above is understood to be equivalent to the changing of the radius of the circular geometric shape primitive. Where this process is done to simulate erosion and dilation see abstract: “We show that topology-optimized meta surfaces can be made robust by incorporating the performance of geometrically eroded and dilated devices directly into the iterative optimization algorithm (examiner note: simulation).”
Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Wang_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called optimizing physical designs. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Wang_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a motivation and teaching proposed in the art. Wang_2019 states “abstract: An important design consideration is ensuring that devices are insensitive to imperfections arising from realistic fabrication processing.” Schubert_2021 also discusses fabrication constraints to ensure proper fabrication, see par 47 “fabrication loss … to ensure fabricability of the design.” The creator of the combined invention of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 would be then motivated to include a simulation that considers imperfections, as it is an important design consideration for optimizing the structure of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the optimization workflow of primitives for photonic devices of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the changing of radius so simulate dilation and erosion of Wang_2019 for the benefit of considering imperfections in the simulations to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is an effective duplicate of claim 9, except that it depends on claim 14. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claims 9 and 14.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of US 20210266088 A1 “TECHNIQUES OF ROBUST INVERSE DESIGN THAT ACCOUNT FOR MANUFACTURING VARIABILITIES DUE TO OPERATING CONDITIONS” (Lu_2021)
Claim 10:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite wherein the actions further comprise transmitting the list of geometric shape primitives to a fabrication system for fabricating the physical device.
Lu_2021 however, makes obvious wherein the actions further comprise transmitting the list of geometric shape primitives to a fabrication system for fabricating the physical device. (par 71: “Each perturbed structural parameter 706 represents the structural parameters of the initial design 736 as they would be fabricated by the fabrication system under a different set of operating conditions. “
Examiner note: Where the structural parameters of Lu_2021 is interpreted to correspond to the final list of geometric shape primitives as outlined in the combined invention of Schubert_2021, and Arisoy_2020. Where this passage makes obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art the fact that a fabrication system Is used to fabricate the system created. See also claim 14 of Lu_2021: “wherein the actions further comprise transmitting the revised initial design to a fabrication system for fabrication.”)
Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020 and Lu_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called physical device design and optimization. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020 and Lu_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. The prior art of Schubert_2021 is a fabrication optimization system for designing photonic devices. Lu_2021 is the same. It is obvious and predictable to one ordinarily skilled in the art that the purpose of designing the fabrication device is so that it could be fabricated. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that applying the known technique of transmitting revised initial design for fabrication would apply to Schubert_2021 for the predictable result of fabricating the designed system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and geometry primitives of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the transmitting of the final product for fabrication of Lu_2021 for the obvious and predictable result of fabricating the device to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is an effective duplicate of claim 10, except that it depends on claim 11. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claims 10 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Photonic topology optimization with semiconductor-foundry design-rule constraints” by Alec M. Hammond, Ardavan Oskooi, Steven G. Johnson, and Stephen E. Ralph. This article discusses topology optimization similar to the workflow proposed in this patent. The article also propose the use of design constraints.
“Analytical level set fabrication constraints for inverse design” by Dries Vercruysse, Neil V. Sapra, Logan Su, Rahul Trivedi & Jelena Vučković. This article discusses fabrication constrains in inverse design during optimization similar to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights