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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in German parent Application No. DE 10 2021 104 886.9, filed on March 1, 2021.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for international priority under 35 U.S.C. 371. The Instant Application is a national stage entry of International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2022/054646, filed on February 24, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 1, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
As a result of the Preliminary Amendment filed on September 1, 2023, claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are amended.
Also as a result of the Preliminary Amendment filed on September 1, 2023, the Specification and Abstract are amended to comply with US patent guidelines. No new matter has been added as a result of this Amendment.
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “A computer-implemented method for determining a spatial distribution of element size values for geometric basic elements of a mesh representation from a digital representation of an object…” which are limitations which fall under groupings of Abstract ideas (Step 2A) of “Mathematical concepts” and “Mental processes”, i.e. concepts performed in the human mind the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (step 2A). Specifically, although the claim discusses the use of a generic computer, the claim recites various steps of mathematical concepts that can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, such as determining from a digital representation a local maximum, determining a spatial distribution, determining elements size values, etc., which are mathematic concepts and mental processes of organizing geometric objects.
Under Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes a “computer-implemented method” to perform the steps. The claims only describe a generic computer element that does not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, other than simply implementing the abstract idea onto a computer.
Under Step 2B, the claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. (See MPEP 2106.05). The claims also do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea to significantly more than the judicial exception. The dependent claims are also considered an abstract idea for the same reason listed above for mental processes and also do not amount to significantly more (I.e. finding local minimum, setting fixed points, etc.). The use of a generic computer algorithm to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical concept or mental process is not sufficient for patent eligibility (See MPEP 2106, generally).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim, taken as a whole, encompasses an ineligible signal per se. Claim 15 recites the limitation “computer program product”, which covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. A claim with both transitory and non-transitory embodiments are taken under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to encompass both embodiments. In addition, transitory embodiments were not specifically excluded by the Specification at Paragraphs [0064-0065], which state in part “… a permanent or volatile data memory, such as a flash memory or random access memory, which includes the computer program element. Further types of data memories that include the computer program element are therefore not ruled out, however.” Thus, claim 15 is separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for covering a transitory signal per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11 and 14-15 iare rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inada, United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0138637 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Inada discloses a computer-implemented method for determining a spatial distribution of element size values for geometric basic elements of a mesh representation from a digital representation of an object for a simulation of the object, wherein the mesh representation contains a plurality of interconnected geometric basic elements (Figs. 1-6, generally, Abstract, Summary), wherein the method includes the following steps:
determining a digital representation of an object (Figs. 3, simulation program, #3; Detailed Description, [0026-0030]);
determining, for at least one position of the digital representation of the object, at least one local maximum limit for the element size values that depends on at least one local geometric property in an area surrounding the position (Figs. 4-6, S14, Detailed Description, [0034-0038], “ other words, a simulation area is uniformly divided into blocks, a variation rate in an area i at a simulation calculation point (grid point) in each block, the maximum value (Si, max) and minimum value (Si, min) of the variation rate in each block are determined.”);
determining, for the digital representation of the object, a predefined spatial distribution of an upper limit, independent of the at least one local maximum limit, for the element size values and a predefined spatial distribution of a maximum spatial change in the element size values (Fig. 6, S16; Detailed Description, [0068], “Next, a difference between the maximum value and the minimum value (Si, max-Si, min) is calculated to determine whether the difference is larger than a predetermined threshold value (Th) preset by a user. If the difference is larger than the threshold value (Th), it is determined that an area in a target block includes a portion having a large variation rate and a portion having a small variation rate in a mixed form, and the block is further divided evenly to obtain a link structure.”; See also Detailed Description, [0029][0061] on predetermined blocks); and
determining a spatial distribution of element size values for the digital object representation on the basis of the local maximum limit, the predefined spatial distribution of the upper limit and the predefined spatial distribution of the maximum spatial change (Fig. 6, S18; Detailed Description, [0069], “Next, an average (S) of area variation rates in each block is calculated by averaging area variation rates (Si) in each calculation point in each block. To elaborate, an average of area variation rates is derived from Expression (3).”).
Regarding claim 2, Inada discloses wherein the method also includes the following step: determining, for the digital representation of the object, a predefined spatial distribution of a lower limit for the element size value, which is additionally a lower limit for the local maximum limit (Figs. 4-6, S14, Detailed Description, [0034-0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Inada discloses wherein the step determining a spatial distribution of element size values includes the following substep:
determining, for each position of the digital representation of the object, a maximum possible element size value, which is based at least on the local maximum limit, the predefined spatial distribution of the upper limit and the predefined spatial distribution of the maximum spatial change (Detailed Description, [0044-0050], “As described above, the maximum value and minimum value of the variation rate in an area of each divided block are determined again, and the area is repeatedly divided a certain number of times not larger than the number of times designated by a user to generate blocks until a difference therebetween is reduced. Upon such block division, it is effective to create and manage a table. Following the generation of the blocks, the area variation rates in each of the blocks are averaged. In addition, the data structure applied to recursive area division is represented by link structure.”).
Regarding claim 11, Inada further discloses wherein the step of determining, for at least one position of the digital representation of the object, a local maximum limit for the element size value that depends on at least one local geometric property in an area surrounding the position, includes the following substep:
determining the local maximum limit for the position on the basis of a local curvature of a surface of the digital representation of the object at the position, a local wall thickness of the digital representation of the object at the position and/or a previously carried out simulation result for the object (Detailed Description, [0047-0050], “ Next, an output-frequency-in-block determination module 7 calculates the ratio of area variation rate (rs) and the ratio of time variation rate (rt) in the tables 50, 51-1, 51-2, and 52. In other words, a block having the larger area variation rate than any other blocks and a value thereof (maximum resolution) are extracted to output every physical quantity at each grid point in the block having the maximum area variation rate.”; Examiner’s note—"and/or” is taken as a disjunctive equivalent to or”).
Regarding claim 14, Inada discloses wherein the method also includes the following steps:
determining a spatial distribution of geometric basic elements for a mesh representation of the digital representation of the object on the basis of the determined spatial distribution of element size values (Detailed Description, [0031], “] As illustrated in FIG. 4, the simulation area is expressed by grid points of the mesh. Each of a plurality of grid points correspond to a plurality of output points for simulation calculation results. Each of the sets of the original data is associated with each of the plurality of grid points arranged in the simulation area. The block division module 3 divides the simulation area into proper-sized blocks and then calculates the variation rate in physical quantity at each grid point in each block.”); and
determining a mesh representation for the digital representation of the object from geometric basic elements on the basis of the determined spatial distribution of geometric basic elements (Detailed Description, [0026], “For example, the simulation program 3 is a large-scale application program for a heat conduction simulation, a typhoon simulation, and a simulation of a flow around a body. The program converts a predetermined area (two-dimensional or three-dimensional) into a mesh form to calculate a physical quantity at each grid point of mesh at regular time frequency (at each step) and output time-series data about the physical quantity.”).
Regarding claim 15, Inada discloses a computer program product having instructions, which can be carried out on a computer and, when carried out on a computer, prompt the computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (Background, [0003]; Fig. 1; Detailed Description, [0024]).
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) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada in view of Young et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0295803 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Inada discloses every element to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the digital representation of the object has a multi-material geometry, wherein the spatial distribution of the upper limit, the spatial distribution of the maximum local change in the element size values and/or the step of determining, for at least one position of the digital representation of the object, a local maximum limit for the element size value that depends on at least one local geometric property in an area surrounding the position, are material-dependent.
Young, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the digital representation of the object has a multi-material geometry, wherein the spatial distribution of the upper limit, the spatial distribution of the maximum local change in the element size values and/or the step of determining, for at least one position of the digital representation of the object, a local maximum limit for the element size value that depends on at least one local geometric property in an area surrounding the position, are material-dependent (Summary, [0013], “ Moreover, in images where the properties of material being imaged is captured in the image data, the invention may permit variance of the mesh resolution to provide greater cell density for regions in which the properties vary substantially.”; Detailed Description, [0035], “The focal region and transition zone and the location of sampling points in the variable distribution may be automatically determined by considered one or more factors in addition to the fundamental topological constraint, e.g. by considering any one of: indications inputted manually by a user, localized measures of geometric complexity within regions of interest, computed estimates of locations of significant variation in a field parameter to be subsequently analysed. These factors may be represented in the original image data. For example, in one embodiment, the magnitude (e.g. binary value or the like) of an image signal sampled at a sampling point may be indicative of the material that exists at that point, e.g. bone, tissue, air, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Inada to include the teachings of Young’s material-dependent recognition, in such a way to provide herein the digital representation of the object has a multi-material geometry, wherein the spatial distribution of the upper limit, the spatial distribution of the maximum local change in the element size values and/or the step of determining, for at least one position of the digital representation of the object, a local maximum limit for the element size value that depends on at least one local geometric property in an area surrounding the position, are material-dependent. The motivation to combine these arts is to gain the advantages of recognition changes in material properties, and to use localized measures to reflect changes in said material properties (See Young, Detailed Description, [0035]; See also Young at claim 13). The fact that Inada and Young disclose similar types of image and data processing methods, makes this combination more easily implemented.
Regarding claim 13, Inada discloses every element to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital representation of the object is determined by means of a computed tomographic measurement of the object.
Young, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the digital representation of the object is determined by means of a computed tomographic measurement of the object. (Detailed Description, [0025], “The method may be applicable to two dimensional (2D) or three dimensional (3D) image data. Images of surfaces or objects respectively can be obtained using a wide range of 2D and 3D imaging modalities including, for 2D, photographic images (both digital and traditional film based), X-Ray, 2D ultrasound, Scanning Electron Micrographs and, for 3D, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), Ultrasound, micro-CT, and serial sectioning followed by 2D imaging.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Inada to include the teachings of Young’s application to tomographic images, in such a way to provide digital representation of the object is determined by means of a computed tomographic measurement of the object. The motivation to combine these arts is to add the types of data that can be generated and computed, which gains the advantages of human body part recognition for medical purposes (See Young, Detailed Description, [0025][0058]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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 and if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not show nor render obvious the further substeps of claim 4 or claim 10 to each every one of the particular functional and relational elements. Further reasons for allowance may be furnished in a Notice of Allowance. Claims 5-9 are dependent off of claim 4 and are also objected to as a result of their dependencies.
Other References
The following references are also cited as pertinent but may not be relied upon within this Action:
Henriques et al. (US 2021/0241530 A1); Dedhia (US 2021/0035361 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWIN XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7812. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571)272-3017. 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.
/KWIN XIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights