DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed October 2, 2023 via preliminary amendment. Claims 15-28 are currently pending. Claims 1-14 have been cancelled and claims 15-28 are newly presented.
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 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based upon consideration of all the relevant factors, because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 27 recites a “computer program product”, which is not comprehensively defined by the specification. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a system covers software per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of system, particularly when the specification is silent. Software per se is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture,” or a “composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner suggests adding a recitation of a host “processor.”
Claim 28 recites “computer-readable storage medium” and Applicant does not include any language in the specification providing any further guidance or definition to this term. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable medium. See Ex parte Mewherter, BPAI Appeal No. 2012-7692 (May 8, 2013). Since signals per se do not fall under any of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), they are ineligible for patenting. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim 28 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for covering non- statutory embodiments. See MPEP § 2106.03 (“A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims … should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.”).
Examiner recommends amending claim 28 by adding the words “non-transitory” in front of “computer-readable storage medium” in order to overcome this ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 25, 27, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites multiple uses of “and” at the end of both the “populating” limitation and the “generating” limitation. Using “and” signifies the penultimate limitation of the claim in the particular hierarchical arrangement and should only be used in the latter instance. Claims 25, 27, and 28 recite similar language and are objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
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) 15, 20, 23, 25, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bandara et al. (U.S. 2019/0138670; hereinafter, “Bandara”).
As per claim 15, Bandara teaches a computer-implemented method for designing a customized lattice structure for digital manufacturing (See Bandara para. [0004]), wherein said computer-implemented method comprises the steps of:
receiving a three-dimensional volume (See Bandara paras. [0004]: “obtaining a mechanical problem definition including a 3D model of an object”);
receiving one or more lattice configurations configured to fill said three-dimensional volume (See Bandara para. [0006]: receiving different lattice configurations and selection(s) thereof);
receiving one or more user-defined design rules configured to modify a type and/or a geometry of said lattice configurations (See Bandara para. [0038]: “the 3D modeling program 116 can also facilitate manipulation of the 3D model 132, which can include adding, deleting, or changing components 134 of the model 132, including components that intersect with the lattice 136, and also changing the extent and inclusion of the lattice 136 (e.g., by defining a containing envelope for the lattice structure 136)”.);
populating said three-dimensional volume based on said lattice configurations (See Bandara para. [0038]: “Once the user 190 is satisfied with the model 132 and its lattice 136, the 3D model 132 and its lattice 136 can be stored as a document 130 and/or used to generate another representation of the model (e.g., an .STL file for additive manufacturing) with the lattice 136 included therein.”); and
applying one or more of said user-defined design rules onto said populated lattice configurations, thereby generating customized lattice configurations and forming said customized lattice structure (See Bandara para. [0038]: storing the model representation after the user is satisfied with the model, such as in an .STL file for additive manufacturing, with the lattice included therein);
generating a digital representation of said customized lattice structure; and incorporating a render of said digital representation in a web page of an HTML client and/or in a native application of a client device (See Bandara Fig. 5 and paras. [0039-40] and [0092]: 3D modeling program on device to display and interact with model components and the lattice).
As per claim 20, Bandara further teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 15, wherein one or more of said lattice configurations comprise a user-defined grid structure comprising a plurality of unit cells; and wherein said computer-implemented method further comprises the step of generating customized grid structures comprising a plurality of customized unit cells when applying said user-defined design rules onto said lattice configurations (See Bandara paras. [0044]: lattice settings, including different lattice cell sizes; para. [0038]: storing the model representation after the user is satisfied with the model, such as in an .STL file for additive manufacturing, with the lattice included therein).
As per claim 23, Bandara further teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 20, wherein said customized grid structure follows an outer surface of said three-dimensional volume (See Bandara Fig. 2B and paras. [0034], [0045], [0053] and [0075]: lattice structures shown about various model surfaces. Surface models and meshes are demonstrated to be specifically used as part of the 3D models).
As per claim 25, the claim is directed to a system that implements the same features as the method of claim 15, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 27, the claim is directed to a computer program product that implements the same features as the method of claim 15, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 28, the claim is directed to a computer readable storage medium that implements the same features as the method of claim 15, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandara as applied above, and further in view of Karpas et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0217520; hereinafter “Karpas”).
As per claim 21, Bandara teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 20. However, while Bandara teaches the customized grid structure, Bandara does not explicitly state its structure is regular.
Karpas teaches wherein said customized grid structure is regular throughout said three-dimensional volume of said customized lattice structure (See Karpas Figs. 3A-3D and para. [0078]: drawing distinction between the regular rectangular cells and the irregular cells).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the customized lattice of Bandara with the regular structure of Karpas. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose lattice structure generation for additive manufacturing environments. Karpas further enhances the structures of Bandara by expanding upon the use cases of the manufacturing due to its “relative versatility”, while also achieving established goals
As per claim 22, Bandara teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 20. However, while Bandara teaches the customized grid structure, Bandara does not explicitly state its structure is non-regular.
Karpas teaches wherein said customized grid structure is non-regular throughout said three-dimensional volume of said customized lattice structure and allows for a free flow population of said customized grid structure (See Karpas Figs. 3A-3D and paras. [0077-78]: drawing distinction between the regular rectangular cells and the irregular cells. This further includes multiple axis printing mechanisms that allow for various degrees of freedom).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Bandara with the teachings of Karpas for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 21.
As per claim 24, Bandara teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 15. However, while Bandara teaches the lattice configurations, Bandara does not explicitly teach or suggest Voronoi or Delaunay based lattices.
Karpas teaches wherein one or more of said lattice configurations comprise a Voronoi-based lattice generation and/or a Delaunay-based lattice generation (See Karpas paras. [0068] and [0078]: Voronoi structures as 3D embodiments of a lattice).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Bandara with the teachings of Karpas for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 21.
As per claim 26, Bandara teaches the system according to claim 25. However, while Bandara teaches machine learning techniques (See Bandara para. [0067]), Bandara does not explicitly teach reinforcement learning.
Karpas teaches wherein said system comprises a reinforcement learning kernel (See Karpas paras. [0053], [0071], and [0075]: “implement machine-learning algorithms that retain data from previously implemented methods and utilize this data to inform the operation of further methods”. These machine-learning algorithms can be re-run to converge on a design).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Bandara with the teachings of Karpas for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 21. Moreover, by implementing machine-learning, this allows the modeling to “become more efficient at the described techniques moving forward” (See Karpas para. [0071]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 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. Specifically, claims 16 and 17 are directed to specific language of characteristics and features as they relate to stresses and mechanical forces at specific locations in the lattice. While both Bandara and cited-but- De Lange (retrieved from IDS filed October 2, 2023) teach these types of analyses (See Bandara paras. [0052-53] and [0057]; see also De Lange paras. [0034-35]), these references do not teach the specifics of the claim language in conjunction with the modifications/updates as they relate to the lattice configurations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118