DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 9/7/2023, wherein:
Claims 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16 have been amended;
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 13, and 15 remain as original;
Claims 17 and 18 are new; and
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
A “plastic strain estimating module” in claims 10 and 11;
A “heating plan calculating module” in claims 10 and 11;
A “database creating module” in claim 11;
A “measuring means” in claim 15;
A “comparing means” in claim 15; and
A “deforming means” in claim 15.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof is as follows:
A “plastic strain estimating module” in claims 10 and 11 is not shown in the figures; but is described in paras. 0098, as “the device includes: a plastic strain estimating module which estimates a plastic strain based on heating conditions inputted by a user”;
A “heating plan calculating module” in claims 10 and 11 is not shown in the figures; is described in paras. 0098, as “the device includes:… a heating plan calculating module which calculates a heating plan based on a processing object (a material, a shape, dimensions, and the like of the processing object) inputted by the user, an intended shape, and the plastic strain”;
A “database creating module” in claim 11 is not shown in the figures; but is described in paras. 0098, as “the device includes:…a database creating module which creates a heating conditions database by accumulating, in plurality, the plastic strain estimated by the plastic strain estimating module may be included”;
A “measuring means” in claim 15 is not shown in the figures; but is described in para 0028, as “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”; and
A “comparing means” in claim 15 is not shown in the figures; but is described in para 0028, as “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”; and
A “deforming means” in claim 15 is not shown in the figures; but is described in para 0028, as “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The following claimed limitations are recited within the specification without provision for any structural details or any explanation of their meaning such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to configure a system/method for media licensing to incorporate these features:
Claimed limitations in claims 10 and 11 for “plastic strain estimating module”, are not depicted in Applicant’s drawings, and the specification doesn’t indicate any definitions or explanation of what hardware makes up the plastic strain estimating module, or how the plastic strain estimating module is implemented. The specification only states in paras. 0098, that “the device includes: a plastic strain estimating module which estimates a plastic strain based on heating conditions inputted by a user”.
Claimed limitations in claims 10 and 11 for “heating plan calculating module”, are not depicted in Applicant’s drawings, and the specification doesn’t indicate any definitions or explanation of what hardware makes up the heating plan calculating module, or how the heating plan calculating module is implemented. The specification only states in paras. 0098, that “the device includes:… a heating plan calculating module which calculates a heating plan based on a processing object (a material, a shape, dimensions, and the like of the processing object) inputted by the user, an intended shape, and the plastic strain”.
Claimed limitations in claims 10 and 11 for “database creating module”, are not depicted in Applicant’s drawings, and the specification doesn’t indicate any definitions or explanation of what hardware makes up the database creating module, or how the database creating module is implemented. The specification only states in paras. 0098, that “the device includes:…a database creating module which creates a heating conditions database by accumulating, in plurality, the plastic strain estimated by the plastic strain estimating module may be included”.
Claimed limitations in claim 15 for a “measuring means”, are not depicted in Applicant’s drawings, and the specification doesn’t indicate any definitions or explanation of what hardware makes up the measuring means, or how the measuring means is implemented. The specification only states in para. 0028 that “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”.
Claimed limitations in claim 15 for a “comparing means”, are not depicted in Applicant’s drawings, and the specification doesn’t indicate any definitions or explanation of what hardware makes up the comparing means, or how the comparing means is implemented. The specification only states in para. 0028 that “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”.
Claimed limitations in claim 15 for a “comparing means”, are not depicted in Applicant’s drawings, and the specification doesn’t indicate any definitions or explanation of what hardware makes up the deforming means, or how the deforming means is implemented. The specification only states in para. 0028 that “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”.
The rejections that follow are interpreted in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections discussed above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 11, and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation a “plastic strain estimating module”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structure is associated with the plastic strain estimating module. The specification only describes the plastic strain estimating module in para. 0098, as “the device includes: a plastic strain estimating module which estimates a plastic strain based on heating conditions inputted by a user”. For examination purposes, the module will be interpreted as software.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation a “database creating module”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structure is associated with the database creating module. The specification only describes the database creating module in para. 0098, as “the device includes:…a database creating module which creates a heating conditions database by accumulating, in plurality, the plastic strain estimated by the plastic strain estimating module may be included”. For examination purposes, the module will be interpreted as software.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation a “heating plan calculating module”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structure is associated with the heating plan calculating module. The specification only describes the heating plan calculating module in para. 0098, as “the device includes:… a heating plan calculating module which calculates a heating plan based on a processing object (a material, a shape, dimensions, and the like of the processing object) inputted by the user, an intended shape, and the plastic strain”. For examination purposes, the module will be interpreted as software.
Claim 15 recite the limitation a “measuring means”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structure is associated with the measuring means. The specification only describes the measuring means in para. 0028, as “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”.
Claim 15 recite the limitation a “comparing means”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structure is associated with the comparing means. The specification only describes the comparing means in para. 0028, as “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”.
Claim 15 recite the limitation a “comparing means”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structure is associated with the comparing means. The specification only describes the comparing means in para. 0028, as “the plate deformation device includes: deforming means (A) which heats a plate using an n-th heating conditions candidate outputted by an n-th (n≥1) attempt to deform the plate: measuring means which measures a three-dimensional shape of the deformed plate; comparing means which compares the measured three-dimensional shape of the plate and an n-th shape candidate that is an analysis result of a finite element structural analysis performed in the n-th attempt with each other; and deforming means (B) which heats the plate based on a result of the comparison so that a three-dimensional shape of the plate approximates the analysis result”.
The rejections that follow are interpreted in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a calculation method of a heating plan for deforming a plate which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Mathematical Concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-18 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of: calculating a heating plan for deforming a plate. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A calculation method of a heating plan for deforming a plate by heating, the calculation method comprising: a Bayesian optimization step of performing a Bayesian optimization by inputting a training data group including a plurality of combinations of heating conditions that include a heating shape having been set at an arbitrary location of an analysis model for an original shape being a shape of the plate and an assessed value of a deformed shape that has been calculated based on the heating conditions and determining a heating conditions candidate; and a finite element analysis step of converting the heating conditions candidate into strain data and performing a structural analysis based on a finite element method by inputting the strain data to output a shape candidate. Independent claim 1, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Mathematical Concepts, since it recites mathematical calculations. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “an analysis model”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-18 recite similar limitations as independent claim 1; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “a neural network, a program, a computer-readable recording medium that stores the program, a device comprising a calculating unit, a plastic strain estimating module, a heating plan calculating module, a processing object, a database creating module, a plate deformation device comprising a heating unit and a control unit, measuring means, comparing means, and deforming means”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 only recites the additional elements of “an analysis model”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-18, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “a neural network, a program, a computer-readable recording medium that stores the program, a device comprising a calculating unit, a plastic strain estimating module, a heating plan calculating module, a processing object, a database creating module, a plate deformation device comprising a heating unit and a control unit, measuring means, comparing means, and deforming means”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements 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 recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-18 do not include additional elements 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 of the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming 35 USC §102/§103
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome: the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action; the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office Action; and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent claims 1 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is JP-2626496-B2 to Ryoichi et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ryoichi), JP-2666685-B2 to Takayasu et al. (hereinafter referred to as Takayasu), and US 20160059291 to Zhao et al. (hereinafter referred to as Zhao). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claim 1. For independent claim 1, the prior art of Ryoichi, Takayasu, and Zhao specifically do not disclose: “A calculation method of a heating plan for deforming a plate by heating, the calculation method comprising: a Bayesian optimization step of performing a Bayesian optimization by inputting a training data group including a plurality of combinations of heating conditions that include a heating shape having been set at an arbitrary location of an analysis model for an original shape being a shape of the plate and an assessed value of a deformed shape that has been calculated based on the heating conditions and determining a heating conditions candidate; and a finite element analysis step of converting the heating conditions candidate into strain data and performing a structural analysis based on a finite element method by inputting the strain data to output a shape candidate”. Dependent claims 2-18, are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2002192240A teaches a method for drawing up a line heating plan for deformation of heating plates.
JP 3000957B2 teaches a plasticity analysis method and system for efficiently obtaining the stress and strain generated when a certain structure is deformed by a load such as heat or load using a finite element analysis.
JP 3491440B2 teaches a strain generation formula that defines heating conditions for generating a strain having a desired shape.
JP 2666691B2 teaches a method for determining the position, direction and generated intrinsic strain (intensive strain distribution) of a linear heating wire based on an elastic analysis of a finite element method (FEM).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 9/8/2026
Prosecution Insights