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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the claimed limitation requires complex computation, simulation, and processes including digital modeling, finite element analysis and numerical simulation, therefore they are not mental process, it is noted that judicial exception includes not just mental processes, but also mathematical formula or equations, and the complex computation, simulation, and processes including digital modeling, finite element analysis and numerical simulation all classify as mathematical formula or equations, therefore, the claimed limitations recite abstract ideas.
The applicant further argues that the system/method enable individualized, customized design of physical components achieved by receiving measurements of a human body part and using them to generate a control file for additive manufacturing, the examiner respectfully disagrees, it is noted that enabling individualized customized design of physical components can be interpreted as an improvement in the abstract idea itself because individualizing customized design of physical components, and receiving measurements of a human body part is merely data gathering (i.e. insignificant extra-activity) and the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), and a generating control file for additive manufacturing based on the received measurement is generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use, see below for detailed 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The examiner recommends amending the independent claim to recite manufacturing the individualized physical component using the generated control file to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-24 and 26-35 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 25 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20200297522 to Milgrom et al.
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 limitation(s) is/are: structured porous body providing unit, material model providing unit in claims 33 and 35, physical property determination unit in claims 33 and 35, control file generator in claims 33 and 35, interface unit, generation apparatus in claim 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 § 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 33-35 and 37-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving compare the target physical property with the physical property determined for a periodically structured porous body, and iii) decide, based on the comparison, whether to a) generate an amended structural representation of an amended periodically structured porous body and/or an amended material model, repeating the comparison or b) select the periodically structured porous body as the target periodically structured porous body for which the control file generator generates the control file (claim 49), generate a library of periodically structured porous bodies from which a periodically structured porous body fulfilling the target physical property is selected (claim 50), these limitations as described in [0070]-[0072] and [0098]-[0099] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts of providing a structural representation for a periodically structured porous body, wherein the structural representation is indicative of a structure of the periodically structured porous body, providing a material model, wherein the material model is indicative of a response of a material to one or more external physical influences, determining physical properties for the periodically structured porous body, wherein a physical property for the periodically structured porous body is determined based on the structural representation of the periodically structured porous body and the material model, determining different periodically structured porous bodies for different locations of the physical component, wherein determining the physical properties comprises automatically selecting one or more periodically structured porous bodies with the corresponding one or more physical properties, simulating a physical event effected on each periodically structured porous body and determining, from a simulated response of each periodically structured porous body to the physical event, the physical properties for each periodically structured porous body, carrying out a simulated physical testing procedure that provides a response indicative of a predetermined physical property, and wherein the simulated physical testing procedure comprises simulating the physical event effected on each periodically structured porous body, wherein simulating the physical event comprises virtually subjecting each periodically structured porous body to a predetermined pressure based on the pressure map, determining a physical property of a periodically structured porous body, to simulate a physical event effected on the periodically structured porous body and to determine from a simulated response of the periodically structured porous body to the physical event the physical property, wherein the simulated physical event is part of a simulated physical testing procedure that provides a response indicative of a predetermined physical property, generating a library of physical properties of a plurality of periodically structured porous bodies based on the physical properties determined for the periodically structured porous bodies, generate a plurality of amended structural representation of an amended periodically structured porous body and to initiate a determination of a physical property for all generated periodically structured porous bodies, these limitations as described in [0064]-[0078] constitutes details of mathematical calculations of the material model, physical properties, thus, it falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 33-35, 37-39 and 41-50).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of the interface unit is configured to receive a measurement of a human body part and wherein the one or more external physical influences correspond to the received measurement, receiving a measurement of human body part, an interface unit to receive the measurement of the human body part, wherein the measurement comprises one or more mechanical properties, wherein the measurement is a pressure map, a weight map or a scan of a human body part, wherein the measurement is a pressure map (claims 33-35, 38, 40 and 44) represent mere data gathering which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The structured porous body providing unit, material model providing unit, physical property determination unit in, library generation unit, optimization unit, the control file generator is adapted to generate the control file based on the generated library, the apparatus (claims 33-35, 45, 47-50) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “control file generator for generating a control file usable for manufacturing the physical component comprising or being at least partially made of the structural porous body”, “a respective control file generated by the control file generation unit” and “a interface system for generating a control file for additive manufacturing of a physical component comprising or being at least partially made of a structural porous body, wherein the interface system comprises an apparatus and an interface unit configured to provide an interface with the apparatus” (claims 33-34) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The structured porous body providing unit, material model providing unit, physical property determination unit in, library generation unit, optimization unit, the control file generator is adapted to generate the control file based on the generated library, the apparatus, are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 33-35 and 37-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190138670 to Bandara et al. (hereinafter “Bandara”), in view of US20200297522 to Milgrom et al. (hereinafter “Milgrom”).
As for claim 19, Bandara discloses an interface system for generating a control file for additive manufacturing of a physical component comprising or being at least partially made of a structural porous body (Bandara, see Fig. 1A and [0036]-[0038] and [0058]), wherein the interface system comprises:
a generation apparatus for generating a control file for additive manufacturing of a physical component comprising or being at least partially made of a structural porous body (Bandara, see Fig. 1A and [0036]-[0038] and [0058], it is noted that lattice structures can be interpreted as the structural porous body as claimed);
an interface unit configured to provide an interface with the apparatus (Bandara, see [0036]-[0040] and Fig. 1A).
wherein the apparatus comprises:
a structured porous body providing unit for providing a structural representation for a periodically structured porous body, wherein the structural representation is indicative of a structure of the periodically structured porous body (Bandara, see Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B and [0036]-[0038]);
a material model providing unit for providing a material model, wherein the material model is indicative of a response of a material to one or more external physical influences (Bandara, see Fig. 4, [0036] and [0070]-[0086]);
a physical property determination unit for determining physical properties for the periodically structured porous body, wherein a physical property for the periodically structured porous body is determined based on the structural representation of the periodically structured porous body and the material model (Bandara, see [0002] for performance being stiffness/flexibility (i.e. physical property) and see Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086] for determining performance of the lattice based on structural representation of the lattice and the material model);
a control file generator for generating a control file usable for manufacturing the physical component comprising or being at least partially made of the structural porous body (Bandara, see [0038] “STL file”).
Bandara does not explicitly disclose the interface unit is configured to receive a measurement of a human body part and wherein the one or more external physical influences correspond to the received measurement, individualized component.
However, Milgrom in an analogous art discloses the interface unit is configured to receive a measurement of a human body part (Milgrom, see [0040]-[0041] and [0057]) and wherein the one or more external physical influences correspond to the received measurement (Milgrom, see [0083]), individualized component (Milgrom, see [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Milgrom into the system of Bandara. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to manufacture a patient specific device for reducing plantar pressure in a patient (Milgrom, see [0010]).
Claim 34 is a method claim corresponds to the system claim 33, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 33.
Claim 35 is a computer medium claim corresponds to the system claim 33, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 33.
As per claim 37, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses periodically structured porous bodies created with materials (Bandara, see Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B and [0036]-[0038]). Milgrom further discloses determining different materials for different locations of the physical component (Milgrom, see [0040]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Milgrom into the system of Bandara. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to manufacture a patient specific device for reducing plantar pressure in a patient (Milgrom, see [0010]).
As per claim 38, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses determining the physical properties comprises automatically selecting one or more periodically structured porous bodies with the corresponding one or more physical properties (Bandara, see Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]). Milgrom further discloses the measurement comprises one or more mechanical properties, selecting materials with the corresponding one or more physical properties (Milgrom, see [0040]-[0043] and [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Milgrom into the system of Bandara. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to manufacture a patient specific device for reducing plantar pressure in a patient (Milgrom, see [0010]).
As per claim 39, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses periodically structured porous bodies created with materials (Bandara, see Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B and [0036]-[0038]). Milgrom further discloses determining different materials for different locations of the physical component (Milgrom, see [0040]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Milgrom into the system of Bandara. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to manufacture a patient specific device for reducing plantar pressure in a patient (Milgrom, see [0010]).
As per claim 40, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated, Milgrom further discloses the measurement is a pressure map (Milgrom, see [0040]-[0043] and [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Milgrom into the system of Bandara. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to manufacture a patient specific device for reducing plantar pressure in a patient (Milgrom, see [0010]).
As per claim 41, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses periodically structured porous bodies created with materials (Bandara, see Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B and [0036]-[0038]). Milgrom further discloses determining different materials for different locations of the physical component (Milgrom, see [0040]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Milgrom into the system of Bandara. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to manufacture a patient specific device for reducing plantar pressure in a patient (Milgrom, see [0010]).
As per claim 42, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses wherein determining comprises simulating a physical event effected on each periodically structured porous body and determining, from a simulated response of each periodically structured porous body to the physical event, the physical properties for each periodically structured porous body (Bandara, see [0002], Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]).
As per claim 43, the rejection of claim 42 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses carrying out a simulated physical testing procedure that provides a response indicative of a predetermined physical property, and wherein the simulated physical testing procedure comprises simulating the physical event effected on each periodically structured porous body (Bandara, see [0002], Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]).
As per claim 44, the rejection of claim 42 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses simulating the physical event comprises virtually subjecting each periodically structured porous body to predetermined force (Bandara, see [0002], Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]). Milgrom further discloses the measurement is a pressure, selecting material to pressure based on the pressure map (Milgrom, see [0040]-[0043] and [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Milgrom into the system of Bandara. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to manufacture a patient specific device for reducing plantar pressure in a patient (Milgrom, see [0010]).
As per claim 45, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses wherein the physical property determination unit is adapted, for determining a physical property of a periodically structured porous body, to simulate a physical event effected on the periodically structured porous body and to determine from a simulated response of the periodically structured porous body to the physical event the physical property (Bandara, see [0002], Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]).
As per claim 46, the rejection of claim 45 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses wherein the simulated physical event is part of a simulated physical testing procedure that provides a response indicative of a predetermined physical property (Bandara, see [0002], Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]).
As per claim 47, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses a library generation unit for generating a library of physical properties of a plurality of periodically structured porous bodies based on the physical properties determined for the periodically structured porous bodies (Bandara, see Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086] for saving different lattice behavior of different lattice properties in a database (i.e. generating a library of physical properties of the plurality of the lattice in a database).
As per claim 48, the rejection of claim 47 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses wherein the control file generator is adapted to generate the control file based on the generated library (Bandara, see [0039], Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]).
As per claim 49, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises an optimization unit for optimizing a physical component, wherein the optimization unit is adapted to i) receive a target physical property of a target structured porous body (Bandara, see [0010], Fig. 1A and [0036]-[0040]), ii) compare the target physical property with the physical property determined for a periodically structured porous body by the physical property determination unit (Bandara, see Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]), and iii) decide, based on the comparison, whether to a) generate an amended structural representation of an amended periodically structured porous body and/or an amended material model, repeating the determination of the physical property by the physical property determination unit, and the comparison or b) select the periodically structured porous body as the target periodically structured porous body for which the control file generator generates the control file (Bandara, see Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]).
As per claim 50, the rejection of claim 49 is incorporated, Bandara further discloses wherein the optimization unit is adapted to generate a plurality of amended structural representation of an amended periodically structured porous body and to initiate a determination of a physical property for all generated periodically structured porous bodies by the physical property determination unit to generate a library of periodically structured porous bodies from which a periodically structured porous body fulfilling the target physical property is selected and a respective control file generated by the control file generation unit (Bandara, see Fig. 2A, [0044]-[0047], Fig. 4, and [0070]-[0086]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights