DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-25 are presented for examination based on the application filed on June 22, 2023.
Claims 1-8 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0245305 A1 Yang, Pinghai et al. [herein “Yang”].
Claims 6-8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Seno, Takashi, Yutaka Ohtake, Yuji Kikuchi, Noriaki Saito, Hiromasa Suzuki, and Yukie Nagai. "3D scanning based mold correction for planar and cylindrical parts in aluminum die casting." Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 2, no. 2 (2015): 96-104 [herein “Seno”].
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seno.
This action is made non-Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-25 are objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with a previous recitation. For example, claim 1, “a part” in Ln. 3, is improper because there has been a previous recitation of “a part” in Ln. 1. For the purpose of examination, “a part” in Ln. 3 will be interpreted as “the part”. Claims 9 and 14, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected. Similarly, the following are objected under similar rationale:
Claim 19, “a manufacturing tool” in Ln. 3 should be “the manufacturing tool.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with no previous recitations. For example, claim 1, “the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable” in Ln. 13-14, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable”. For the purpose of examination, “the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable” will be interpreted as “an event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable”. Claims 9 and 14, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected. Similarly, the following are objected under similar rationale:
Claim 1, “the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable” in Ln.15-163 should be “an event the deviation is determined to be acceptable”. Claims 9 and 14, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected.
Claim 6, “the same amount of total vertices” in Ln. 4-5 should be “a same amount of total vertices”.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-8 and 19-25 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 recites the phrase “continuing to manufacture the part based on the first electronic file” Ln. 16. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how the part can be continued to be manufactured when it was already manufactured in Ln. 4. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “continuing to manufacture the part based on the first electronic file” in this claim to be “store the three-dimensional reference design in the computer memory” as recited in claims 9 and 14 and in the specification Para. 0057, “In the event the deviation (and/or classification if applicable) is determined to be acceptable, at Step 140, the three-dimensional reference design of the first electronic file is stored in computer memory”. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language from “continuing to manufacture the part based on the first electronic file” to “store the three-dimensional reference design in the computer memory” or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to an accepting the first design file/three-dimensional reference design which produced an correct physical part. Claim 19, having similar limitations of claim 1, is also rejected. Claims 2-8 and 20-25, which are dependent on claims 1 and 19, respectively, are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 9-13 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; claims 14-18 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine; and claims 19-25 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 19: The limitations of:
“comparing the first electronic file and the second electronic file and determining a deviation based on the comparison of the first electronic file and the second electronic file” and “comparing the second electronic file and a third electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of the part and determining a deviation between the second electronic file and the third electronic file based on the comparison of the second electronic file and the third electronic file”,
“determining whether the deviation is acceptable”,
“executing one of: (a) in the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable, revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part or modifying a manufacturing process for the part”, and
“(b) in the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable, continuing to manufacture the part based on the first electronic file” and “(b) in the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable, continuing to manufacture the part using the manufacturing tool”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be performed as the following”
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pencil and paper find differences between a scanned model and an initial design model by evaluating differences in coordinate locations of areas on the models,
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pencil and paper if the differences are within a specified tolerance,
a person can mentally change or draw with a pencil and paper the process of manufacturing such as modify the time required between steps of adding material to the part if the differences are not within a specified tolerance, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with a pencil and paper the no changes needed to be made to the design if the differences are within a specified tolerance.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 9, 14, and 19 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“by the one or more processors”, “A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for inverse modeling of a part, that when executed by one or more processors”, “A system configured to provide inverse modeling of a part, the system comprising: a computer memory; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the computer memory; and an inverse modeling application stored in the computer memory and comprising computing instructions configured to execute on the one or more processors, the inverse modeling application, when executed by the one or more processors” are merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements,
“manufacturing the part based on the first electronic file”, “preparing the manufacturing tool based on the first electronic file”, and “executing one of: (a) in the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable, modifying the manufacturing tool and/or the first electronic file” are merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Para. 0044 (“changing only the design/design parameters of the part itself, with process parameters remaining unchanged, which could result in the manufacture of acceptable parts with less manufacturing iterations/shorter time”) is directed to an improved design, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)).
“importing, by one or more processors, a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a part into a computer memory”, “receive a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a part and store the first electronic file in a computer memory”, “importing, by one or more processors, a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a manufacturing tool into a computer memory”, “collecting metrology data for the part, creating a second electronic file, by the one or more processors, comprising the collected metrology data for the part, and saving, into the computer memory, the second electronic file” and “receive a second electronic file comprising metrology data for a part manufactured based on the first electronic file and store the second electronic file in the computer memory”, and “store the three-dimensional reference design in the computer memory” are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data storing activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 9, 14, and 19 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 19: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, scanning physical objects to obtain a 3D CAD model has been shown in the art to also be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 2018/0285500 A1 Wilcox, William et al. Para . 0011 “An electronic representation of the actual part is, or is based on, a point cloud or a mesh captured from one of the many surveying sensors known in the art, e.g. white light scanners, blue light scanners, Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM), 3D laser scanners, ultrasonic thickness tester, or Computer Tomography based scanning devices”. Further see US 2018/0059631 A1 Newell, Nicholas et al. Para. 0003 “The 3D printable model data may be defined using a stereo lithography (STL) format, or using another suitable 3D model data format now known or later developed. The 3D printable model data may be created using a computer aided design (CAD) system. Alternatively, the 3D printable model data may be generated from captured image data acquired by a scanner 3D system, a 3D digital image capture device (e.g., a digital camera), and/or a series of captured images that provide a series of different views of the object of interest (such that the 3D printable model data can be determined).” Additionally see US 2022/0245305 A1 Yang, Pinghai et al. Para. 0025, “Process 200 then proceeds from operation 210 to operation 215 where the physical component produced by the AM system is measured via a measurement device to capture measurement data including the geometry of at least one of the external and/or internal surface of the physical component. The measurement device may be a CMM, an X-ray, CT system, or any other suitable inspection/measurement device. In some embodiments, the measurement data may be point-cloud coordinate data. In one embodiment, the point-cloud coordinate measurements may be transformed (e.g., via post-processing at the AM system) into triangular-mesh data”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 9, 14, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2 and 20, they recite an additional limitation of “classifying the deviation”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pencil and paper that if the deviation is out of tolerance by being less than a minimum then the deviation is a contraction of the material.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 2 and 20, they recite an additional element recitation of “by the one or more processors” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 15, and 22, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part includes inverting, by the one or more processors, the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file and applying the inverted deviation to the three-dimensional reference design” and “inverting, by the one or more processors, the deviation between the second electronic file and the third electronic file and applying the inverted deviation to the first electronic file and preparing a new manufacturing tool based on application of the inverted deviation to the first electronic file”, are merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Para. 0044 (“changing only the design/design parameters of the part itself, with process parameters remaining unchanged, which could result in the manufacture of acceptable parts with less manufacturing iterations/shorter time”) is directed to an improved design, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 10, 15, and 22 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 16, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the first electronic file is one of a computer-aided design file or results of a three-dimensional scan of a previously manufactured part as a three-dimensional mesh or a three-dimensional point cloud” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, scanning physical objects to obtain a 3D CAD model has been shown in the art to also be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 2018/0285500 A1 Wilcox, William et al. Para . 0011 “An electronic representation of the actual part is, or is based on, a point cloud or a mesh captured from one of the many surveying sensors known in the art, e.g. white light scanners, blue light scanners, Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM), 3D laser scanners, ultrasonic thickness tester, or Computer Tomography based scanning devices”. Further see US 2018/0059631 A1 Newell, Nicholas et al. Para. 0003 “The 3D printable model data may be defined using a stereo lithography (STL) format, or using another suitable 3D model data format now known or later developed. The 3D printable model data may be created using a computer aided design (CAD) system. Alternatively, the 3D printable model data may be generated from captured image data acquired by a scanner 3D system, a 3D digital image capture device (e.g., a digital camera), and/or a series of captured images that provide a series of different views of the object of interest (such that the 3D printable model data can be determined).” Additionally see US 2022/0245305 A1 Yang, Pinghai et al. Para. 0025, “Process 200 then proceeds from operation 210 to operation 215 where the physical component produced by the AM system is measured via a measurement device to capture measurement data including the geometry of at least one of the external and/or internal surface of the physical component. The measurement device may be a CMM, an X-ray, CT system, or any other suitable inspection/measurement device. In some embodiments, the measurement data may be point-cloud coordinate data. In one embodiment, the point-cloud coordinate measurements may be transformed (e.g., via post-processing at the AM system) into triangular-mesh data”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4, 11, and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 17, and 24, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein collecting metrology data for the part comprises performing a three-dimensional scan of the part and the second electronic file comprises results of the three-dimensional scan of the part” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, scanning physical objects to obtain a 3D CAD model has been shown in the art to also be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 2018/0285500 A1 Wilcox, William et al. Para . 0011 “An electronic representation of the actual part is, or is based on, a point cloud or a mesh captured from one of the many surveying sensors known in the art, e.g. white light scanners, blue light scanners, Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM), 3D laser scanners, ultrasonic thickness tester, or Computer Tomography based scanning devices”. Further see US 2018/0059631 A1 Newell, Nicholas et al. Para. 0003 “The 3D printable model data may be defined using a stereo lithography (STL) format, or using another suitable 3D model data format now known or later developed. The 3D printable model data may be created using a computer aided design (CAD) system. Alternatively, the 3D printable model data may be generated from captured image data acquired by a scanner 3D system, a 3D digital image capture device (e.g., a digital camera), and/or a series of captured images that provide a series of different views of the object of interest (such that the 3D printable model data can be determined).” Additionally see US 2022/0245305 A1 Yang, Pinghai et al. Para. 0025, “Process 200 then proceeds from operation 210 to operation 215 where the physical component produced by the AM system is measured via a measurement device to capture measurement data including the geometry of at least one of the external and/or internal surface of the physical component. The measurement device may be a CMM, an X-ray, CT system, or any other suitable inspection/measurement device. In some embodiments, the measurement data may be point-cloud coordinate data. In one embodiment, the point-cloud coordinate measurements may be transformed (e.g., via post-processing at the AM system) into triangular-mesh data”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5, 12, 17, and 24 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional element recitation of “generating or transforming the second electronic file into a vertex structure and transforming the first electronic file into a data file format with the same amount of total vertices as the second electronic file, with each vertex on the second electronic file and each vertex on the first electronic file having a 1:1 correspondence; or generating or transforming the first electronic file into a vertex structure and transforming the second electronic file into a data file format with the same amount of total vertices as the first electronic file, with each vertex on the second electronic file and each vertex on the first electronic file having a 1:1 correspondence” which is morphing models to create a one-to-one comparison been shown in the art to also be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see Feulvarch, Eric et al. "Mesh Morphing Based on Standard FEA Software Features and Application to Crack Propagation." In Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, vol. 86151, p. V002T02A020. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2022 on Pg. 2 , “In the setting of mesh morphing two meshes are defined, the source mesh and the target mesh. Note that the source and the target mesh cannot have a different number of nodes (or vertices) and cannot have not a different topology. A transformation function can be defined to link the two meshes…Note that the transformation function is bijective, i.e. each node of the source mesh is paired with exactly one node of the target mesh, and each node of the target mesh is paired with exactly one element of the source mesh. There are no unpaired nodes”. Further see Claus, Felix et al. "A finite-element based mesh morphing approach for surface meshes." Computer-Aided Design 146 (2022): 103232 on Pg. 2, “Morphing is relevant for our approach as it can be used for transforming geometry in such a way that it matches a target shape. Morphing methods perform (1) CAD data-based morphing or (2) mesh based morphing. CAD data-based morphing algorithms apply a transformation to CAD surfaces. The topology and number of faces of the CAD model remain the same during morphing. As mesh and modeling rules for automated model generation work flows are commonly defined together with a CAD definition, the update of the simulation model can be performed efficiently and robustly. This principle can be used for different applications, i.e. see, [20,21]. CAD data-based morphing has also been used to generate a digital twin from measured geometries”. Additionally see Seno, Takashi, Yutaka Ohtake, Yuji Kikuchi, Noriaki Saito, Hiromasa Suzuki, and Yukie Nagai. "3D scanning based mold correction for planar and cylindrical parts in aluminum die casting." Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 2, no. 2 (2015): 96-104 on Pg. 99-100 Sect. 2, “we present an algorithm for correcting the mold CAD mesh. The primary correction strategy is to move the vertices of the mold CAD mesh according to the deformation estimated by comparing the product CAD mesh and the scan data. We introduce a correction vector to move a vertex of the mold CAD mesh. As shown in Fig. 9, the correction vector ci for the i-th vertex pimold is estimated” and Pg. 101-102 Sect. 2, “The correction vectors obtained through the above procedure can be directed in various directions. This multi-directionality might lead to overhanging shapes or self-intersections of the mold CAD mesh (circled in red in Fig. 10). To avoid these problems, the direction of the correction vector is restricted to the direction of the normal vector”. Further, Fig. 9 (reproduced below as Figure 1 in the 103 rejection) shows that the product CAD mesh (part mesh, i.e. first electronic file) maps each of its vertices to one and only one vertex of the scan data (metrology data, i.e., second electronic file. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as is has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file is determined by calculating a distance between each corresponding vertex”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pencil and paper find differences between a scanned model and an initial design model by evaluating differences in coordinate locations of areas on the models.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitations of “wherein the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file is determined by calculating a distance between each corresponding vertex”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the distance between vertices can be accomplished by determine the difference between the measurements and the locations of each vertex (see Para. 0010, “the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file is determined by calculating a distance between each corresponding vertex”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 8, 13, 18, and 25, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part and the second electronic file comprises results of the in-process monitoring”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally record or draw with a pencil and paper data when observing a part being manufactured such as missed components and have the second model account for this missing component.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 8, 13, 18, and 25, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part and the second electronic file comprises a combination of the results of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, scanning physical objects to obtain a 3D CAD model has been shown in the art to also be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 2018/0285500 A1 Wilcox, William et al. Para . 0011 “An electronic representation of the actual part is, or is based on, a point cloud or a mesh captured from one of the many surveying sensors known in the art, e.g. white light scanners, blue light scanners, Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM), 3D laser scanners, ultrasonic thickness tester, or Computer Tomography based scanning devices”. Further see US 2018/0059631 A1 Newell, Nicholas et al. Para. 0003 “The 3D printable model data may be defined using a stereo lithography (STL) format, or using another suitable 3D model data format now known or later developed. The 3D printable model data may be created using a computer aided design (CAD) system. Alternatively, the 3D printable model data may be generated from captured image data acquired by a scanner 3D system, a 3D digital image capture device (e.g., a digital camera), and/or a series of captured images that provide a series of different views of the object of interest (such that the 3D printable model data can be determined).” Additionally see US 2022/0245305 A1 Yang, Pinghai et al. Para. 0025, “Process 200 then proceeds from operation 210 to operation 215 where the physical component produced by the AM system is measured via a measurement device to capture measurement data including the geometry of at least one of the external and/or internal surface of the physical component. The measurement device may be a CMM, an X-ray, CT system, or any other suitable inspection/measurement device. In some embodiments, the measurement data may be point-cloud coordinate data. In one embodiment, the point-cloud coordinate measurements may be transformed (e.g., via post-processing at the AM system) into triangular-mesh data”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8, 13, 18, and 25 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 21, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the manufacturing tool is a mold”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pencil and paper the no changes needed to be made to the design of the mold tool if the deviation differences are within a specified tolerance.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 23, it recites an additional element recitations of “wherein modifying the manufacturing tool comprises making physical changes to the manufacturing tool”, are merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Para. 0044 (“changing only the design/design parameters of the part itself, with process parameters remaining unchanged, which could result in the manufacture of acceptable parts with less manufacturing iterations/shorter time”) is directed to an improved design, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as is has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 23 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-25 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 2-8, claims 10-13, claims 15-18, and claims 20-25 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claims 1, 9, 14, and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0245305 A1 Yang, Pinghai et al. [herein “Yang”].
As per claim 1, Yang teaches “A method for inverse modeling of a part, comprising: importing, by one or more processors, a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a part into a computer memory”. (Para. 0019, “System 100 receives a CAD model design that specifies geometric features and dimensions of a subject component to be produced by a AM system and process herein” [importing a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a part]. Para. 0019, “System 100 includes an AM system 100 that is capable of producing a physical representation (i.e., component 115) based on the CAD model design” [manufacturing the part based on the first electronic file]. Para. 0028, “In the event the initially produced physical component is determined not to be acceptable at decision point 227, then process 200 may proceed as further illustrated to modify the CAD model design so that a sufficiently accurate physical component can be produced by the AM system” [modifying design after physical design is not acceptable, i.e. inverse modeling of a part]. Para. 0031, “the compensation field determined at operation 240 may be used to modify or morph the nominal CAD model at operation 245. The modified nominal CAD model may then be used by the AM system used to produce the initial physical component and emulated in the simulations of operation 235 to produce a physical representation of the modified nominal CAD model” [e.g., a method for inverse modeling of a part]. Para. 0048, “System 400 includes processor(s) 410 operatively coupled to communication device 420, data storage device 430, one or more input devices 440, one or more output devices 450, and memory 460. Communication device 420 may facilitate communication with external devices, such as a data server and other data sources providing access, for example, to a CAD model design repository and other systems, devices, and processing modules such as, for example, a compensation module” [by one or more processors, into a computer memory]. Further see Para. 0012-0022, 0028-0031, and 0048-0051. The examiner has interpreted that determining a compensation to be used to modify a received nominal CAD model design that produced a physical representation of a component through an additive manufacturing system after the physical component was not acceptable through the use of a system including a processor operatively coupled to memory as a method for inverse modeling of a part, comprising: importing, by one or more processors, a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a part into a computer memory.)
Yang teaches “manufacturing the part based on the first electronic file; collecting metrology data for the part, creating a second electronic file, by the one or more processors, comprising the collected metrology data for the part, and saving, into the computer memory, the second electronic file”. (Para. 0019, “System 100 receives a CAD model design that specifies geometric features and dimensions of a subject component to be produced by a AM system and process herein. In some instances, CAD model 105 may be converted or otherwise (pre-)processed to convert a nominal CAD geometry to a desired format suitable for processing and import thereof by other devices and modules of system 100. System 100 includes an AM system 100 that is capable of producing a physical representation (i.e., component 115) based on the CAD model design” [manufacturing the part based on the first electronic file]. “The production of the component 115 by AM system 110 might include post-processing of the printed component. Component 115 is measured by a measurement device 120 to obtain measurement data of the physical component produced by AM system 110. In some embodiments, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), x-ray, computed tomography (CT), and other precision imaging and measuring systems may be used to obtain the measurement data corresponding to the physical component 115 produced by AM system 110” [collecting metrology data for the part]. Para. 0025, “Process 200 then proceeds from operation 210 to operation 215 where the physical component produced by the AM system is measured via a measurement device to capture measurement data including the geometry of at least one of the external and/or internal surface of the physical component. The measurement device may be a CMM, an X-ray, CT system, or any other suitable inspection/measurement device. In some embodiments, the measurement data may be point-cloud coordinate data. In one embodiment, the point-cloud coordinate measurements may be transformed (e.g., via post-processing at the AM system) into triangular-mesh data” [creating a second electronic file comprising the collected metrology data for the part, and saving the second electronic file]. Para. 0048, “System 400 includes processor(s) 410 operatively coupled to communication device 420, data storage device 430, one or more input devices 440, one or more output devices 450, and memory 460. Communication device 420 may facilitate communication with external devices, such as a data server and other data sources providing access, for example, to a CAD model design repository and other systems, devices, and processing modules such as, for example, a compensation module” [by the one or more processors, into the computer memory]. Further see Para. 0012-0022, 0024-0026, and 0048-0051. The examiner has interpreted that producing a component that is a physical representation based on the CAD model design and measuring the component to capture point-cloud coordinate data that is processed by transforming the data into a triangular mesh using a system including a processor operatively coupled to memory as manufacturing the part based on the first electronic file; collecting metrology data for the part, creating a second electronic file, by the one or more processors, comprising the collected metrology data for the part, and saving, into the computer memory, the second electronic file.)
Yang teaches “comparing, by the one or more processors, the first electronic file and the second electronic file and determining a deviation based on the comparison of the first electronic file and the second electronic file”. (Para. 0026, “At operation 220, a deviation between a geometry of the CAD model used to produce the physical component and the measurement data of the physical component obtained at operation 215 is determined” [comparing the first electronic file and the second electronic file and determining a deviation based on the comparison of the first electronic file and the second electronic file]. Para. 0048, “System 400 includes processor(s) 410 operatively coupled to communication device 420, data storage device 430, one or more input devices 440, one or more output devices 450, and memory 460. Communication device 420 may facilitate communication with external devices, such as a data server and other data sources providing access, for example, to a CAD model design repository and other systems, devices, and processing modules such as, for example, a compensation module” [by the one or more processors]. Further see Para. 0024-0029 and 0048-0051. The examiner has interpreted that determining a deviation between the CAD model geometry and the measurement data which was transformed into triangular-mesh using a system including processors as comparing, by the one or more processors, the first electronic file and the second electronic file and determining a deviation based on the comparison of the first electronic file and the second electronic file.)
Yang teaches “determining, by the one or more processors, whether the deviation is acceptable; and executing one of: (a) in the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable, revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part or modifying a manufacturing process for the part; or (b) in the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable, continuing to manufacture the part based on the first electronic file.” (Para. 0026, “The determined deviation is further evaluated at 225 to ascertain whether the initial physical component produced by the AM system is accurately produced, within acceptable tolerances, as determined for an execution of process 200” [determining whether the deviation is acceptable]. Para. 0027, “In the event the initially produced physical component is determined to be acceptable (i.e., meeting or exceeding design geometrical criteria), then process 200 may terminate at 230 without further refinements to the physical component” [(b) in the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable, continuing to manufacture the part based on the first electronic file]. Para. 0028, “In the event the initially produced physical component is determined not to be acceptable at decision point 227, then process 200 may proceed as further illustrated to modify the CAD model design so that a sufficiently accurate physical component can be produced by the AM system” [(a) in the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable, revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part]. Para. 0048, “System 400 includes processor(s) 410 operatively coupled to communication device 420, data storage device 430, one or more input devices 440, one or more output devices 450, and memory 460. Communication device 420 may facilitate communication with external devices, such as a data server and other data sources providing access, for example, to a CAD model design repository and other systems, devices, and processing modules such as, for example, a compensation module” [by the one or more processors]. Further see Para. 0014, 0026-0028 and 0048-0051. The examiner has interpreted that evaluating whether the determined deviation produces the initial component with acceptable tolerances and either in the event that the initial component is acceptable that no refinement to the component is needed or in the event that the initial component is not acceptable that the CAD model of the component is modified using a system including processors as determining, by the one or more processors, whether the deviation is acceptable; and executing one of: (a) in the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable, revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part; or (b) in the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable, continuing to manufacture the part based on the first electronic file.)
As per claim 2, Yang teaches “classifying, by the one or more processors, the deviation.” (Para. 0030, “the nonlinear scale factor map and the measurement data may be used to determine a compensation field” and “Referring again to FIG. 2 and in particular to operation 245, the nominal CAD model is modified by the compensation field determined at operation 240. In some embodiments, the overall modified shape of the component may be larger than the nominal shape to account for some expected shrinkage. In some embodiments, the modified shape may include one or more regions that are larger than the nominal shape and one or more regions that are smaller than the nominal shape (i.e., nonlinearity). The regions that are larger than the nominal shape may account for expected shrinkage, while regions that are smaller than the nominal shape may account for regions that expand due to the stress of the AM process” [classifying the deviation]. Para. 0048, “System 400 includes processor(s) 410 operatively coupled to communication device 420, data storage device 430, one or more input devices 440, one or more output devices 450, and memory 460. Communication device 420 may facilitate communication with external devices, such as a data server and other data sources providing access, for example, to a CAD model design repository and other systems, devices, and processing modules such as, for example, a compensation module” [by the one or more processors]. Further see Para. 0028-0032 and 0048-0051. The examiner has interpreted that including regions that are larger than the nominal shape for expected shrinkage and regions that are smaller than the nominal shape for expected expansion to modify the nominal CAD model using a compensation field determined by the measurements by a system including processors as classifying, by the one or more processors, the deviation.)
As per claim 3, Yang teaches “wherein revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part includes inverting, by the one or more processors, the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file and applying the inverted deviation to the three-dimensional reference design.” (Para. 0028, “In the event the initially produced physical component is determined not to be acceptable at decision point 227, then process 200 may proceed as further illustrated to modify the CAD model design so that a sufficiently accurate physical component can be produced by the AM system” [revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part]. Para. 0022, “A compensation module 130 operates to determine a compensation field based on a deviation between the geometry of CAD model 105 and physical component 115 determined based on the measurement data produced by measurement device 120 and also based on the nonlinear scale factor map generated by simulation module 125. The nominal CAD model 105 may be modified based on the compensation field determined by compensation module 130 and used by AM system 110 to produce a component that is accurately corresponds to the CAD model 105” [wherein revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part includes inverting the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file and applying the inverted deviation to the three-dimensional reference design]. Para. 0048, “System 400 includes processor(s) 410 operatively coupled to communication device 420, data storage device 430, one or more input devices 440, one or more output devices 450, and memory 460. Communication device 420 may facilitate communication with external devices, such as a data server and other data sources providing access, for example, to a CAD model design repository and other systems, devices, and processing modules such as, for example, a compensation module” [by the one or more processors]. Further see Para. 0014, 0022, 0028-0032, and 0048-0051. The examiner has interpreted that modifying the nominal CAD design model by a compensation field based on the deviation between the CAD model and the measurement data on the physical component using a system including processors as wherein revising the three-dimensional reference design of the part includes inverting, by the one or more processors, the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file and applying the inverted deviation to the three-dimensional reference design.)
As per claim 4, Yang teaches “wherein the first electronic file is one of a computer-aided design file or results of a three-dimensional scan of a previously manufactured part as a three-dimensional mesh or a three-dimensional point cloud.” Para. 0019, “System 100 receives a CAD model design that specifies geometric features and dimensions of a subject component to be produced by a AM system and process herein” [wherein the first electronic file is one of a computer-aided design file]. Para. 0037, “In one or more embodiments, the nominal CAD model (e.g., nominal triangular mesh) may be modified by the compensation field” [as a three-dimensional mesh]. Further see Para. 0019 and 0037. The examiner has interpreted that receiving a CAD model design to produce a physical representation of a component initially produced an additive manufacturing system where the model is a nominal triangular mesh using a system including a processor as wherein the first electronic file is one of a computer-aided design file as a three-dimensional mesh.)
As per claim 5, Yang teaches “wherein collecting metrology data for the part comprises performing a three-dimensional scan of the part and the second electronic file comprises results of the three-dimensional scan of the part.” (Para. 0025, “Process 200 then proceeds from operation 210 to operation 215 where the physical component produced by the AM system is measured via a measurement device to capture measurement data including the geometry of at least one of the external and/or internal surface of the physical component. The measurement device may be a CMM, an X-ray, CT system, or any other suitable inspection/measurement device. In some embodiments, the measurement data may be point-cloud coordinate data. In one embodiment, the point-cloud coordinate measurements may be transformed (e.g., via post-processing at the AM system) into triangular-mesh data” [wherein collecting metrology data for the part comprises performing a three-dimensional scan of the part and the second electronic file comprises results of the three-dimensional scan of the part]. Further see Para. 0030, “the nonlinear scale factor map and the measurement data may be used to determine a compensation field. In one embodiment, a vector field may be determined derived from measured errors across a surface of the component. In one or more embodiments, the deviation may be represented as a set of column vectors. In some embodiments, the set of column vectors may include six column vectors (x, y, z, dx, dy, dz), including nominal vectors (i.e., x, y, z) and the displacement vectors (i.e., dx, dy, dz) for the difference between the nominal CAD model and the physical component” [i.e. 3D-space]. Para. 0048, “System 400 includes processor(s) 410 operatively coupled to communication device 420, data storage device 430, one or more input devices 440, one or more output devices 450, and memory 460. Communication device 420 may facilitate communication with external devices, such as a data server and other data sources providing access, for example, to a CAD model design repository and other systems, devices, and processing modules such as, for example, a compensation module” [by the one or more processors, into the computer memory]. Further see Para. 0012-0022, 0024-0026, 0030, and 0048-0051. The examiner has interpreted that measuring the physical additive manufacturing component to capture point-cloud coordinate data that is processed by transforming into a triangular mesh used to determine deviation and compensation in 3D space using a system including a processor as wherein collecting metrology data for the part comprises performing a three-dimensional scan of the part and the second electronic file comprises results of the three-dimensional scan of the part.)
Re Claim 9, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Yang teaches “A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for inverse modeling of a part, that when executed by one or more processors”. (Para. 0018, “processes disclosed herein (e.g., processes 200, 300, and other processes herein) may be performed using any suitable combination of hardware (e.g., circuit(s)), software, and combinations thereof… Software embodying these processes may be stored by any non-transitory tangible medium”[A tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium]. Para. 0038, “process 300 may be implemented by a device, service, system, and combinations thereof executing program instructions by one or more processing units” [storing instructions for inverse modeling of a part, that when executed by one or more processors]. Further see Para. 0018, 0038, and 0048-0051. The examiner has interpreted that performing these processes using hardware and software having program instructions executed by processing units stored by non-transitory tangible medium as a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for inverse modeling of a part, that when executed by one or more processors.)
Re Claim 10, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 11, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 12, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re Claim 14, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Yang teaches “A system configured to provide inverse modeling of a part, the system comprising: a computer memory; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the computer memory; and an inverse modeling application stored in the computer memory and comprising computing instructions configured to execute on the one or more processors, the inverse modeling application, when executed by the one or more processors”. (Para. 0048, “System 400 includes processor(s) 410 operatively coupled to communication device 420, data storage device 430, one or more input devices 440, one or more output devices 450, and memory 460” [A system configured to provide inverse modeling of a part, the system comprising: a computer memory; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the computer memory]. Para. 0046, “The method steps can then be carried out using the distinct software modules and/or sub-modules of the system, as described above, executing on one or more hardware processors 610 (FIG. 6). Further, a computer program product can include a computer-readable storage medium with code adapted to be implemented to carry out one or more method steps described herein, including the provision of the system with the distinct software modules” [an inverse modeling application stored in the computer memory and comprising computing instructions configured to execute on the one or more processors, the inverse modeling application, when executed by the one or more processors]. Further see Para. 0018, 0038, and 0046-0051. The examiner has interpreted that performing these processes using a system including processors operatively coupled to a data storage device and memory that execute software modules and a computer program product with code to carry out these processes as A system configured to provide inverse modeling of a part, the system comprising: a computer memory; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the computer memory; and an inverse modeling application stored in the computer memory and comprising computing instructions configured to execute on the one or more processors, the inverse modeling application, when executed by the one or more processors.)
Re Claim 15, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 16, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 17, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 6-8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Seno, Takashi, Yutaka Ohtake, Yuji Kikuchi, Noriaki Saito, Hiromasa Suzuki, and Yukie Nagai. "3D scanning based mold correction for planar and cylindrical parts in aluminum die casting." Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 2, no. 2 (2015): 96-104 [herein “Seno”].
As per claim 6, Yang teaches “generating or transforming the second electronic file into a vertex structure and transforming the first electronic file into a data file format.” (Para. 0025, “Process 200 then proceeds from operation 210 to operation 215 where the physical component produced by the AM system is measured via a measurement device to capture measurement data including the geometry of at least one of the external and/or internal surface of the physical component. The measurement device may be a CMM, an X-ray, CT system, or any other suitable inspection/measurement device. In some embodiments, the measurement data may be point-cloud coordinate data. In one embodiment, the point-cloud coordinate measurements may be transformed (e.g., via post-processing at the AM system) into triangular-mesh data” [transforming the second electronic file into a vertex structure]. Para. 0024, “the geometry of the nominal CAD model geometry received at operation 205 may comprise (Boundary Representation (B-rep) or Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) data and may be converted to a “.stl” format (stereolithography file format), or any other suitable secondary format, where the secondary format is different from the original file format, for further processing in process 200. Conventionally, B-rep and CSG may be methods for representing shapes in solid modeling. Stereolithography format files may describe only the surface geometry of a three-dimensional object using triangular mesh without any representation of color, texture or other common CAD model attributes, and may be a more desirable file format for rapid prototyping” [transforming the first electronic file into a data file format]. Further see Para. 0022-0028. The examiner has interpreted that transforming the captured measurement data into a triangular mesh and converting the nominal CAD model into stereolithography file format as transforming the second electronic file into a vertex structure and transforming the first electronic file into a data file format.)
Yang does not specifically teach “the first electronic file with the same amount of total vertices as the second electronic file, with each vertex on the second electronic file and each vertex on the first electronic file having a 1:1 correspondence.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely inverse design modeling of manufactured part, Seno teaches “the first electronic file with the same amount of total vertices as the second electronic file, with each vertex on the second electronic file and each vertex on the first electronic file having a 1:1 correspondence.” (Pg. 99-100 Sect. 2, “we present an algorithm for correcting the mold CAD mesh. The primary correction strategy is to move the vertices of the mold CAD mesh according to the deformation estimated by comparing the product CAD mesh and the scan data. We introduce a correction vector to move a vertex of the mold CAD mesh. As shown in Fig. 9, the correction vector ci for the i-th vertex pimold is estimated” and Pg. 101-102 Sect. 2, “The correction vectors obtained through the above procedure can be directed in various directions. This multi-directionality might lead to overhanging shapes or self-intersections of the mold CAD mesh (circled in red in Fig. 10). To avoid these problems, the direction of the correction vector is restricted to the direction of the normal vector”. Further, Fig. 9 (reproduced below as Figure 1) shows that the product CAD mesh (part mesh, i.e. first electronic file) maps each of its vertices to one and only one vertex of the scan data (metrology data, i.e., second electronic file. Further see Sect. 2-3. The examiner has interpreted that avoiding overhangs and intersections by restricting the direction of the correction vector to move mold mesh vertices when comparing the product CAD mesh and scan data for each vertex as the first electronic file with the same amount of total vertices as the second electronic file, with each vertex on the second electronic file and each vertex on the first electronic file having a 1:1 correspondence.)
PNG
media_image1.png
237
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Correction vector estimation (Fig. 9 of Seno)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “the first electronic file with the same amount of total vertices as the second electronic file, with each vertex on the second electronic file and each vertex on the first electronic file having a 1:1 correspondence” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Seno, into that of Yang because this modification of obtaining a one-to-one correspondence for each vertex of the two meshes for the advantageous purpose of improving the accuracy of manufactured parts (Seno, Pg. 97 Abstract & Sect. 1). Further motivation to combine be that Yang and Seno are analogous art to the current claim as directed to inverse design modeling of manufactured part.
As per claim 7, Yang teaches “wherein the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file is determined by calculating a distance between each corresponding vertex.” (Para. 0037, “In one or more embodiments, the nominal CAD model (e.g., nominal triangular mesh) may be modified by the compensation field” [first electronic file contains vertices]. Para. 0025, “Process 200 then proceeds from operation 210 to operation 215 where the physical component produced by the AM system is measured via a measurement device to capture measurement data including the geometry of at least one of the external and/or internal surface of the physical component. The measurement device may be a CMM, an X-ray, CT system, or any other suitable inspection/measurement device. In some embodiments, the measurement data may be point-cloud coordinate data. In one embodiment, the point-cloud coordinate measurements may be transformed (e.g., via post-processing at the AM system) into triangular-mesh data” [second electronic file contains vertices]. Para. 0022, “A compensation module 130 operates to determine a compensation field based on a deviation between the geometry of CAD model 105 and physical component 115 determined based on the measurement data produced by measurement device” and Para. 0036, “discrete vectors (e.g., compensated geometry) may be approximated and extrapolated by a continuous analytical function, such as a Basis(B)-spline hyper-patch to calculate the compensation field. Other suitable analytical functions may be used (e.g., discontinuous, polynomial, distance-based function, inverse function) to calculate the compensation field at any point in the space” [wherein the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file is determined by calculating a distance between each corresponding vertex]. Further see Para. 0022, 0024-0032, and 0036-0037. The examiner has interpreted that using a distance-based function to calculate the compensation field based on the deviation between two triangular meshes of the CAD model and physical component between any point in space as wherein the deviation between the first electronic file and the second electronic file is determined by calculating a distance between each corresponding vertex.)
As per claim 8, Yang does not specifically teach “wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part and the second electronic file comprises a combination of the results of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring.”
However, Seno teaches “wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part and the second electronic file comprises a combination of the results of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring.” (Pg. 96, Abstract “The 3D scan data includes information about deformations that occur during casting” [wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part]. Pg. 99 Sect. 2, “We now have three kinds of data: mold CAD data, product CAD data, and cast aluminum scan data. For simplicity, we convert CAD surfaces to triangular meshes, which we call CAD meshes in this paper” [the second electronic file comprises a combination of the results of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring]. Further see Sect. 2 and the Abstract. The examiner has interpreted that obtaining information about deformations that occur during casting in 3D scan data which is converted to triangular CAD meshes as wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part and the second electronic file comprises a combination of the results of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part and the second electronic file comprises a combination of the results of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Seno, into that of Yang because this modification of monitoring the part during manufacturing for the advantageous purpose of improving the accuracy of manufactured parts (Seno, Pg. 97 Abstract & Sect. 1). Further motivation to combine be that Yang and Seno are analogous art to the current claim as directed to inverse design modeling of manufactured part.
Re Claim 13, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
Re Claim 18, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seno.
As per claim 19, Seno teaches “A method for inverse modeling of a manufacturing tool, comprising: importing, by one or more processors, a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a manufacturing tool into a computer memory; preparing the manufacturing tool based on the first electronic file; manufacturing a part using the manufacturing tool”. (Pg. 96 Sect. 1, “we propose a method to improve the accuracy of die casting by correcting metal mold. In the proposed method, we adopt 3D scanning to measure the shape of cast aluminum. The 3D scan data of cast aluminum includes information about deformation in die casting; consequently, deformation and correction values can be estimated by comparing scan data with product CAD data” [a method for inverse modeling of a manufacturing tool]. Pg. 96 Sect. 1, “Die casting is a type of metal casting that can generate a large number of castings with excellent surface quality in a short time by pressing molten metal into metal molds at high temperature, speed, and pressure” [manufacturing a part using the manufacturing tool]. Pg. 99 Sect. 2, “We now have three kinds of data: mold CAD data, product CAD data, and cast aluminum scan data. For simplicity, we convert CAD surfaces to triangular meshes, which we call CAD meshes in this paper” [three different triangular meshes, i.e., the mold is the first electronic file, the product is the third electronic file, and the cast aluminum scan is second electronic file, respectively; therefore obtaining the mold CAD is importing by one or more processors the first electronic file into a computer memory]. Further, Fig. 2 (reproduced below) shows that the metal mold which is used to create a cast aluminum has 3D data for the mold CAD data, i.e., a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a manufacturing tool and preparing the manufacturing tool based on the first electronic file. Further see Sect. 1 and 2. The examiner has interpreted that correcting a metal mold used to generating castings by pressing metal into the metal mold and by comparing a scan of the cast with a product CAD and having a 3D mold CAD used to create a mold to create a cast aluminum as a method for inverse modeling of a manufacturing tool, comprising: importing, by one or more processors, a first electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of a manufacturing tool into a computer memory; preparing the manufacturing tool based on the first electronic file; manufacturing a part using the manufacturing tool.)
PNG
media_image2.png
363
693
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Overview of this research (Fig. 2 of Seno)
Seno teaches “collecting metrology data for the part, creating a second electronic file, by the one or more processors, comprising the collected metrology data for the part, and saving, into the computer memory, the second electronic file”. (Pg. 98 Sect. 2 “In this section, we describe the proposed algorithm for correcting mold CAD data. An overview of the research process is illustrated in Fig. 2. Our proposed method consists of four steps. 1. 3D scanning of cast aluminum. 2. Registration of cast aluminum scan data, product CAD data, and mold CAD data. 3. Comparison between the scan data and the product CAD data, and estimation of correction. 4. Correction of the mold CAD data using the estimated correction amount” [collecting metrology data for the part]. Pg. 99 Sect. 2, “We now have three kinds of data: mold CAD data, product CAD data, and cast aluminum scan data. For simplicity, we convert CAD surfaces to triangular meshes, which we call CAD meshes in this paper” [i.e., creating a second electronic file, by the one or more processors, comprising the collected metrology data for the part, and saving, into the computer memory, the second electronic file]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that performing a 3D scan of the cast aluminum and converting it to a CAD triangular mesh as collecting metrology data for the part, creating a second electronic file, by the one or more processors, comprising the collected metrology data for the part, and saving, into the computer memory, the second electronic file.)
Seno teaches “comparing, by the one or more processors, the second electronic file and a third electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of the part and determining a deviation between the second electronic file and the third electronic file based on the comparison of the second electronic file and the third electronic file”. (Pg. 99 Sect. 2, “We now have three kinds of data: mold CAD data, product CAD data, and cast aluminum scan data. For simplicity, we convert CAD surfaces to triangular meshes, which we call CAD meshes in this paper” [i.e., a third electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of the part, as seen in Figure 2]. Pg. 98 Sect. 2 “In this section, we describe the proposed algorithm for correcting mold CAD data. An overview of the research process is illustrated in Fig. 2. Our proposed method consists of four steps. 1. 3D scanning of cast aluminum. 2. Registration of cast aluminum scan data, product CAD data, and mold CAD data. 3. Comparison between the scan data and the product CAD data, and estimation of correction. 4. Correction of the mold CAD data using the estimated correction amount” [comparing, by the one or more processors, the second electronic file and a third electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of the part and determining a deviation between the second electronic file and the third electronic file based on the comparison of the second electronic file and the third electronic file]. Further see Sect. 2 and Figure 2. The examiner has interpreted that comparing the scan and product CAD meshes and estimating correction between them as comparing, by the one or more processors, the second electronic file and a third electronic file comprising a three-dimensional reference design of the part and determining a deviation between the second electronic file and the third electronic file based on the comparison of the second electronic file and the third electronic file.)
Seno teaches “determining whether the deviation is acceptable; and executing one of: (a) in the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable, modifying the manufacturing tool and/or the first electronic file; or (b) in the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable, continuing to manufacture the part using the manufacturing tool.” (Pg. 98 Sect. 2 “In this section, we describe the proposed algorithm for correcting mold CAD data. An overview of the research process is illustrated in Fig. 2. Our proposed method consists of four steps. 1. 3D scanning of cast aluminum. 2. Registration of cast aluminum scan data, product CAD data, and mold CAD data. 3. Comparison between the scan data and the product CAD data, and estimation of correction. 4. Correction of the mold CAD data using the estimated correction amount” [determining whether the deviation is acceptable; and (a) in the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable, modifying the first electronic file]. Further Pg. 99-100 Sect. 2, “we present an algorithm for correcting the mold CAD mesh. The primary correction strategy is to move the vertices of the mold CAD mesh according to the deformation estimated by comparing the product CAD mesh and the scan data” [modifying the first electronic file]. Pg. 102 Sect. 3, “we machined the real metal mold according to the corrected mold CAD data and obtained corrected cast aluminum” [modifying the manufacturing tool]. Pg. 103 Sect. 3, “We also scanned the cast aluminum after correction and compared it with the scan data of cast aluminum before correction. The color maps of the difference between the product CAD surface and the scan data of cast aluminum are shown in Fig. 19. The left image is the color map of the scan data of cast aluminum before correction and the right image is after correction. Although these color maps are affected by 3D scanning noise, the improvement of flatness can be observed” [i.e., in the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable, continuing to manufacture the part using the manufacturing tool]. Further see Sect. 2 & 3. The examiner has interpreted that comparing the scan and product CAD meshes and estimating the correction to be made to the mold CAD by moving the vertices of the mold according to the deformation correction amount and improving the cast aluminum after the correction by machining a real metal mold and comparing again the scan of the cast aluminum to the product CAD according to the correction as determining whether the deviation is acceptable; and executing one of: (a) in the event the deviation is determined not to be acceptable, modifying the manufacturing tool and/or the first electronic file; or (b) in the event the deviation is determined to be acceptable, continuing to manufacture the part using the manufacturing tool.)
As per claim 20, Seno teaches “classifying, by the one or more processors, the deviation.” (Pg. 96 Sect. 1, “When molten metal is pressed into metal molds at a high temperature, the shape of the mold cavity changes by thermal expansion. Furthermore, cast aluminum shrinks when it gets cold. Because of these deformations, casting aluminum with a precise shape is difficult…we propose a method to improve the accuracy of die casting by correcting metal mold. In the proposed method, we adopt 3D scanning to measure the shape of cast aluminum. The 3D scan data of cast aluminum includes information about deformation in die casting; consequently, deformation and correction values can be estimated by comparing scan data with product CAD data” [classifying, by the one or more processors, the deviation]. Further see Sect. 1-3. The examiner has interpreted that estimating deformation and correction values caused by thermal expansion and contraction by comparing scan of casting with product CAD as classifying, by the one or more processors, the deviation.)
As per claim 21, Seno teaches “wherein the manufacturing tool is a mold.” (Pg. 96 Sect. 1, “we propose a method to improve the accuracy of die casting by correcting metal mold. In the proposed method, we adopt 3D scanning to measure the shape of cast aluminum. The 3D scan data of cast aluminum includes information about deformation in die casting; consequently, deformation and correction values can be estimated by comparing scan data with product CAD data” [wherein the manufacturing tool is a mold]. Further see Sect. 1.)
As per claim 22, Seno teaches “wherein modifying the first electronic file comprises inverting, by the one or more processors, the deviation between the second electronic file and the third electronic file and applying the inverted deviation to the first electronic file and preparing a new manufacturing tool based on application of the inverted deviation to the first electronic file.” (Pg. 98 Sect. 2 “In this section, we describe the proposed algorithm for correcting mold CAD data. An overview of the research process is illustrated in Fig. 2. Our proposed method consists of four steps. 1. 3D scanning of cast aluminum. 2. Registration of cast aluminum scan data, product CAD data, and mold CAD data. 3. Comparison between the scan data and the product CAD data, and estimation of correction. 4. Correction of the mold CAD data using the estimated correction amount” [modifying the first electronic file]. Further Pg. 99-101 Sect. 2, “we present an algorithm for correcting the mold CAD mesh. The primary correction strategy is to move the vertices of the mold CAD mesh according to the deformation estimated by comparing the product CAD mesh and the scan data… Estimate the deformation vector of the cast aluminum as di = piscan - piprod. 4. Estimate the correction vector as ci = di by reversing the deformation vector di” [wherein modifying the first electronic file comprises inverting, by the one or more processors, the deviation between the second electronic file and the third electronic file and applying the inverted deviation to the first electronic file]. Pg. 102 Sect. 4, “we machined the real metal mold according to the corrected mold CAD data and obtained corrected cast aluminum” [preparing a new manufacturing tool based on application of the inverted deviation to the first electronic file]. Further see Sect. 2-4. The examiner has interpreted that comparing the scan and product CAD meshes and estimating a correction to be made to the mold CAD by moving the vertices of the mold according to a reversal of a deformation vector between the scan and product CAD and machining a real metal mold according to the correction as wherein modifying the first electronic file comprises inverting, by the one or more processors, the deviation between the second electronic file and the third electronic file and applying the inverted deviation to the first electronic file and preparing a new manufacturing tool based on application of the inverted deviation to the first electronic file.)
As per claim 23, Seno teaches “wherein modifying the manufacturing tool comprises making physical changes to the manufacturing tool.” (Pg. 102 Sect. 4, “we machined the real metal mold according to the corrected mold CAD data and obtained corrected cast aluminum” [wherein modifying the manufacturing tool comprises making physical changes to the manufacturing tool]. Further see Sect. 2-4.)
As per claim 24, Seno teaches “wherein collecting metrology data for the part comprises performing a three-dimensional scan of the part and the second electronic file comprises results of the three-dimensional scan of the part.” (Pg. 98 Sect. 2 “In this section, we describe the proposed algorithm for correcting mold CAD data. An overview of the research process is illustrated in Fig. 2. Our proposed method consists of four steps. 1. 3D scanning of cast aluminum. 2. Registration of cast aluminum scan data, product CAD data, and mold CAD data. 3. Comparison between the scan data and the product CAD data, and estimation of correction. 4. Correction of the mold CAD data using the estimated correction amount” [wherein collecting metrology data for the part comprises performing a three-dimensional scan of the part]. Pg. 99 Sect. 2, “We now have three kinds of data: mold CAD data, product CAD data, and cast aluminum scan data. For simplicity, we convert CAD surfaces to triangular meshes, which we call CAD meshes in this paper” [i.e., he second electronic file comprises results of the three-dimensional scan of the part]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that performing a 3D scan of the cast aluminum and converting it to a CAD triangular mesh as wherein collecting metrology data for the part comprises performing a three-dimensional scan of the part and the second electronic file comprises results of the three-dimensional scan of the part.)
As per claim 25, Seno teaches “wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part and the second electronic file comprises a combination of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring.” (Pg. 96, Abstract “The 3D scan data includes information about deformations that occur during casting” [wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part]. Pg. 99 Sect. 2, “We now have three kinds of data: mold CAD data, product CAD data, and cast aluminum scan data. For simplicity, we convert CAD surfaces to triangular meshes, which we call CAD meshes in this paper” [the second electronic file comprises a combination of the results of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring]. Further see Sect. 2 and the Abstract. The examiner has interpreted that obtaining information about deformations that occur during casting in 3D scan data which is converted to triangular CAD meshes as wherein collecting the metrology data for the part comprises performing in-process monitoring during manufacturing of the part and the second electronic file comprises a combination of the results of the three-dimensional scan of the part and results of the in-process monitoring.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0167649 A1 Tanninen, Petri Juhani et al. teaches a method of performing scans to a wood block to which is used to form the sand mold to which is used to a metal part and scans to the metal part to determines changes to be made to scans wood block and mold to create a metal part within specifications.
US 2023/0029302 A1 Catana Salazar, Juan Carlos et al. teaches using the iterative closest point method on scanned point clouds and 3D object models to manufacture 3D prints within verification thresholds.
Sambu, Shiva, Yong Chen, and David W. Rosen. "Geometric tailoring: A design for manufacturing method for rapid prototyping and rapid tooling." J. Mech. Des. 126, no. 4 (2004): 571-580 teaches adjusting the model form a part and tool based on the accuracy of the results from rapid prototyping and rapid tooling for injection molds
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights