Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 06/26/2026, which has
been entered and made of record. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments regarding claim rejections under 103 are considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
226
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees: Applicant argues “reduce” is to make smaller or lesser in degree, not to eliminate entirely and reduce does not mean reduce to zero. However, the claims do not have a clear description/definition about what degree limit that “reduce” can cause to be “smaller or lessor”. For example, if we reduce 10 to 0.01, is it meet the definition of “reduce”? If we reduce 10 to 0.00000….01, is it meet the definition of “reduce”? Plus, the claim does not specify “reduce” something to 0 mean does not “reduce”. So, based on broadly interpretation, reduce something here can mean reduce any amount of an entity.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
262
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees: The combination rationale is not the combining of Ruijters’ body deformation method and the Sim’s body deformation method, as Applicant argues. Sim teaches the knowledge that physical properties can be used in deformable body mechanics, which can be used to reduce cost associated in the use of additive manufacturing. Ruijters teaches a method of deformable body mechanics based on physical properties. By combining Ruijters’s body deformation method with the knowledge taught by Sim, the deformable body generated using the Ruijters’ method can also reduce cost in the additive manufacturing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruijters et al. (US 2010/0239140 A1) in view of Sims et al. (US 2020/0064812 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ruijters teaches:
A method for, comprising:
identifying a centerline path of a vascular feature from a vasculature model; (FIG. 1, [0036], “When defining the path of said blood vessel's 3D tubular structure's central axis by {right arrow over (x)}={right arrow over (f)}(t),”) based on the centerline path, determining, for the centerline path, an arc length, an x- axis length, a y-axis length, and a z-axis length; ([0036]-[0049] teaches the length between a start point and end point of a centerline path. Based on the centerline path, the centerline length is decided. The centerline point is represented in 3D (x, y, z) coordinates. The corresponding length of the centerline in x-axis, y-axis and z-axis are decided. ) and
stretching the centerline path to reduce the z-axis length. (FIG. 5 teaches an example of stretching the centerline path along z direction. Since the length of centerline path is fixed, by stretching along z direction, the x-axis or y-axis length is reduced. When stretching along the x-axis or y-axis, the length of z-axis is reduced.)
However, Ruijters does not teach, but Sims teaches:
preparing an additive manufacturing model (Abstract: “A system and method that relies on the principles of material science, deformable body mechanics, continuum mechanics and additive manufacturing to reduce the costs associated with additive manufacturing. Physical properties are used by numerical solution methods, such as the Finite Element Method (FEM) or Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), to deform an original model of an object to be manufactured into a viable configuration that reduces fabrication material, time, and cost when manufacturing an object through additive manufacturing.” Claim 1)
Ruijters teaches get a vascular model’s physical features and also deform the model as needed. Sims teaches the physical features can be used for additive manufacturing model.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Ruijters with the specific teachings of Sims to deform an original model of an object to be manufactured into a viable configuration that reduces fabrication material, time, and cost when manufacturing an object through additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 2, Ruijters in view of Sims teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein stretching the centerline path maintains the arc length of the centerline path. (Ruijters As shown in FIG. 5, the stretching changes the shape, but the length of the arc is unchanged. )
Regarding claim 3, Ruijters in view of Sims teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein stretching the centerline path increases one or both of the x-axis length or the y-axis length to a stretched x-axis length or a stretched y-axis length. (Ruijters FIG. 5 gives an example of stretching the centerline path along the z-axis, which changes the length along the z-axis. Similarly, if stretching along the x-axis or y-axis, the length along the x-axis or y-axis will change.)
Regarding claim 4, Ruijters in view of Sims teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the stretched x-axis length or the stretched y-axis length fit within a 3D printing tray. (Ruijters in view of Sims teaches preparing the vasculature model, including stretching, to be printed. It is well-known in the art that in order to 3D printing a model, the model has to fit within a 3D printing tray. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skills in the art to combined the teachings of Ruijters in view of Sims with the well-known knowledge to adjust the model (stretching the x-axis length or the stretched y-axis length of the model) to fit within a 3D printing tray in order for the model to be able to printed out.)
Regarding claim 5, Ruijters in view of Sims teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein stretching the centerline path includes maintaining a diameter of the vascular feature. (Ruijters As shown in FIG. 5, the stretching changes the shape the vessel along the arc, but does not changes the vessel itself, so the diameter of the vascular itself does not change).
Regarding claim 6, Ruijters in view of Sims teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a reaction force for the vascular feature based on one or both of Young's Modulus or a Poisson's ratio of the additive manufacturing model. (Sims [0047], “Knowing the elastic and plastic deformation limits, the amount of stress/strain to be applied to the model is determined to avoid plastic deformation. The system or a user sets a maximum stress/strain limit and the system applies corresponding forces to avoid exceeding the maximum stress/strain limit. The level of deformation must not exceed a recoverable deformed configuration, i.e. the level of deformation must not exceed elastic deformation for an elastic object.” The combination of claim 1 is applied here.)
Regarding claim 10, Ruijters teaches:
A method for , comprising:
preparing a vasculature model, the vasculature model including a vascular feature having a centerline and a diameter and a wall thickness; ([0003]-[0004], “Visualization of 3D tubular structures, such as e.g. blood vessels, is an important topic in CT- and MRI-based medical imaging. One way to display such 3D tubular structures for diagnostic purposes is to generate longitudinal cross-sections so as to show their lumen, wall, and surrounding tissue in a curved visualization plane. This process is called Curved Planar Reformation (CPR). A curved planar reformat--also known as a "curved planar reconstruction"--is a graphical visualization of a 3D tubular structure's longitudinal cross-section on such a curved visualization plane. The goal of curved reformatting is to make the tubular structure to be graphically displayed and examined visible in its entire length within a single image and without spatial foreshortening. To accomplish this requirement, a-priori information about the tubular structure, notably the 3D object's centerline, is required. In particular, Curved Planar Reformation (CPR) is a way to visualize vascular structures with small diameter. Thereby, high-level information, such as e.g. a blood vessel's centerline (in the following also referred to as "central axis"), is used to resample and visualize image data which have previously been acquired by CT or MR angiography.”)
determining a z-axis length of the vascular feature; ([0036]-[0049] teaches the length between a start point and end point of a centerline path. Based on the centerline path, the centerline length is decided. The centerline point is represented in 3D (x, y, z) coordinates. The corresponding length of the centerline in x-axis, y-axis and z-axis are decided. )
stretching the vascular feature to generate a deformed vasculature model, wherein stretching the vascular feature is based on the centerline to reduce the z-axis length while maintaining an arc length of the centerline; (FIG. 5 teaches an example of stretching the centerline path along z direction. Since the length of centerline path is fixed, by stretching along z direction, the x-axis or y-axis length is reduced. When stretching along the x-axis or y-axis, the length of z-axis is reduced.)
However, Ruijters does not teach, but Sims teaches:
additively manufacturing a printed part of the deformed vasculature model. (Abstract: “A system and method that relies on the principles of material science, deformable body mechanics, continuum mechanics and additive manufacturing to reduce the costs associated with additive manufacturing. Physical properties are used by numerical solution methods, such as the Finite Element Method (FEM) or Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), to deform an original model of an object to be manufactured into a viable configuration that reduces fabrication material, time, and cost when manufacturing an object through additive manufacturing.” [0046], “The physical properties of the materials are used to determine elastic and plastic deformation limits. The validation step ensures that the simulation is possible, and the material used during printing can recover from the deformation.”)
Ruijters teaches get a vascular model’s physical features and also deform the model as needed. Sims teaches the physical features can be used for additive manufacturing model.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Ruijters with the specific teachings of Sims to deform an original model of an object to be manufactured into a viable configuration that reduces fabrication material, time, and cost when manufacturing an object through additive manufacturing
Regarding claim 14, Ruijters in view of Sims teaches:
A computing system, comprising:a processor and memory, the memory including instructions executable by the processor (Ruijters [0079], “s shown in FIG. 7, image data which have been generated by the image generating system 9 and supplied to the image processing system 10 via said input interface 14 can temporarily or persistently be stored in an image data archive of an external storage unit 19. For being visualized, stored image data can be loaded via a data input interface DATA_IN into a local temporary storage of the image processing system 10 (not shown), thereby using a standardized data format such as e.g. the DICOM format.”) the rest of claim 14 recites similar limitations of claim 1, thus is rejected accordingly.
Claims 15-19 recite similar limitations of claim 2-6 respectively, thus are rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruijters in view of Sims and Cotin et al. (US 2008/0020362 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ruijters in view of Sims teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the vascular feature is a first vascular feature, stretching the centerline path (See claim 1) and
However, Ruijters in view of Sims does not explicitly, but Cotin teaches:
the vasculature model further includes a second vascular feature, (FIG. 3, different branches of the vascular. )
and wherein stretching the centerline path includes preventing the first vascular feature from contacting the second vascular feature. (Ruijters in view of Sims teaches stretching the certerline, Cotin teaches different branches of the vascular. When stretch the centerline, one possible result could be that the two branch contacting each other, another possible result could be that they do not contact each other. It would have been obvious for a person ordinary skill in the art to choose the second possible result, i.e. do not contact each other, to help users to get a clear boundary of each branch of the vascular after stretching.)
Claims 20 recite similar limitations of claim7, thus are rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruijters in view of Sims and Bulard (US 10717233 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Ruijters in view of Sims teaches:
The method of claim 10, further
However, Ruijters in view of Sims does not teach, but Bulard teaches:
comprising mounting a printed part to a frame. (para 23: “In this embodiment, any off-set to the clamping bracket 470 will not cause a position error to the male portion 210 of the seating mechanism 200, as it will be independently mounted to the 3D printer frame.”)
Ruijters in view of Sims teaches printing a vascular model part. Bulard teaches a mounting a part to a frame.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Ruijters in view of Sims with the specific teachings of Bulard to help the system assemble different parts.
Regarding claim 12, Ruijters in view of Sims and Bulard teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein mounting the printed part to the frame includes reforming the vasculature model. (Ruijters in view of Sims teaches preparing the vasculature model, including stretching, to be printed. Ruijters in view of Sims and Bulard teaches mounting the part to a frame. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skills in the art to combined the all the different parts of teachings of Ruijters in view of Sims and Bulard to adjust the model so the model can be mounted into a frame.
Regarding claim 13, Ruijters in view of Sims and Bulard teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein reforming the vasculature model includes applying a reaction force to the vascular feature to fit the vascular feature in the frame. (Sims [0047], “Knowing the elastic and plastic deformation limits, the amount of stress/strain to be applied to the model is determined to avoid plastic deformation. The system or a user sets a maximum stress/strain limit and the system applies corresponding forces to avoid exceeding the maximum stress/strain limit. The level of deformation must not exceed a recoverable deformed configuration, i.e. the level of deformation must not exceed elastic deformation for an elastic object.” The combination of claim 10 is applied here.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the references along or in combination teaches the limitations of “wherein preventing the first vascular feature from contacting the second vascular feature includes applying a thin coating to an outer surface of the first vascular feature and the second vascular feature.” Recited in claim 8 and similarly recited in claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANNA WU whose telephone number is (571)270-0725. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:30 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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 5712722330. 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.
/YANNA WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights