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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8-14 recite “one or more storage media.” Applicant’s specification defines “storage media” as “any non-transitory media”, para. [00141]-[00142].
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 6 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 13 recite the limitation "second input". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong one
The claim(s) recite(s) estimating a customer price quote to print a 3d model based on similar previous customer orders, which is an act that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, the step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Step 2A prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed towards generating a price quote based on previous similar requests for giving profitable price quotes and the limitations are recited at a level of generality which encompass human judgement and could be performed in the human mind while merely using computers as tools for the back and forth process of a customer submitting an order, the business generating a price quote and sending back to the customer for acceptance. Although the claim recites receiving “segmented data” from the “segmenting computer”, this limitation is merely directed towards data transformation to compatible 3d printer formats.
Step 2B – “search for inventive concept”
The recited claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or the functioning of the 3d printing process itself but is rather directed towards ensuring profitable price quotes, thus it is not tied to a technical solution to a specific technical problem. Over/under estimating true cost to print a 3d model has no relationship to increasing speed/accuracy/efficiency or reducing power requirements. The use of a “requesting computer” to communicate with a price quote server is merely using the computers as tools of communicating between a customer and business and amounts to mere instructions of “apply it.”
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the segmented image data is mere transformation of input data based on customer order to a printer compatible order and is recited at a high level of generality such that it recites no specific improvement to the conversion of the customers medical image data with selected preferences to the 3d printer compatible data and estimated cost.
The depending claims 2-7 merely recite additional details of customer order, launching a video conference to facilitate communication for approval and various notifications through the process of approving a customer order, price quote, and final approval. As such, they do not recite a practical application of the abstract idea and merely recite the use of computers for communication as a tool, without improving the tools themself.
However, Fig. 4B step 440 teaches “PRINT 3D MODEL” after customer approval and would possibly be patent-eligible subject matter if recited in the independent claims as it would recite a practical application.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell et al. US 2016/0274572 A1 in view of Kuhn et al. US 2018/0165867 A1.
Littrell teaches:
1. A computing system comprising:
one or more processors; [processing system 103 and customer computer 101] and
one or more memories storing instruction [101 and 103] which, when processed by the one or more processors, cause:
receiving, from a requester computer [customer computer 101], over a computer network [para. 0002, “More particularly, the present invention relates a viewing and quoting tool that may be used internally over a local area network (LAN), over the internet, or by other similar means.”], through a web portal [Fig. 6 customer computer 101],
Littrell does not teach the following limitation, however, Kuhn teaches:
image data and a request to print a 3D model; [Fig. 3 “Receive image data including DICOM file by server” and para. 0030, “Server 109 can receive the print request from the client application and can create a DICOM file with information related to how the image is displayed at that time on the client application (i.e., what is seen on the display can be the same as the 3D printed model).”]
receiving segmentation instructions about segmenting the image data; [para 0061, user uses tools and options (Fig. 5B) for selecting color, mask, highlight, or remove certain areas and request exported file be 3d printed.]
Littrell further teaches:
generating, in a database, a record that indicates a print order that is based on the request and the segmentation instructions and that includes the image data; [para. 0030, 0032, 0035 and 0039, “price quotes” generated from user requests on Fig. 6 103]
searching the database for the record based on first input from a segmenting computer that is different than the requester computer; [Fig. 6 requesting computer 101 is different than segmenting and quoting computer 103] and
receiving, from the segmenting computer, segmented image data that has been segmented based on the segmentation instructions. [Fig. 6 111 and para. 0039 delivers segmented model plus structure support and preferences as well as tests for potential manufacturing issues for feedback to customer and authorization]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuhn with those of Littrell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Kuhn teaches the conversion of DICOM medical image data to segmented (sliced) compatible files for a networked 3D printing system while preserving original high resolution data for increased accuracy (See para. 0061).
Littrell teaches:
2. The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause: sending, to an entity associated with the requester computer, a notification that the segmented image data is available for viewing. [para. 0039, server notifies customer of potential manufacturing issues for current orientation and size]
Littrell teaches:
3. The computing system of Claim 2, wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause: receiving, from the entity, a response, to the notification, that the segmented image data is approved. [para. 0039, “If no errors are detected the system can automatically generate a price quote 113 for the customer 101 who can then submitted to the Administrator 114 for final approval and manufacture 115.”]
Kuhn further teaches:
6. The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the first input or the second input includes credentials, wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause: based on the credentials received from the segmenting computer, determining whether to grant, to the segmenting computer, access to the image data. [para. 0055, access control to medical data]
Littrell further teaches:
7. The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause:
sending, to an entity associated with the requester computer, a notification that includes a quote for printing a 3D model based on the image data and segmentation instructions; [Fig. 6 quote generate 113]
receiving, through the web portal, an indication of whether a user associated with the requester computer accepts the quote. [Fig. 6 customer comp 101 approves/rejects price quote and approval to manufacture 115]
Regarding CRM claims 8-10 and 13-14 and method claims 15-17 and 20, these claims recite the storage of and steps for executing the functions recited in apparatus claims above and are rejected on the same grounds and rationale as corresponding claims above.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell et al. US 2016/0274572 A1 in view of Kuhn et al. US 2018/0165867 A1 and further in view of Abuelsaad et al. US 2018/0341249 A1.
The combination of Littrell and Kuhn does not teach the following limitation, however, Abuelsaad teaches:
4. The computing system of Claim 2, wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause: after sending the notification, receiving, from the entity, a second request to establish a video conference to discuss the segmented image data. [para. 0014, video signals and data/voice connects client and server for 3d printing and quote generating system]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Abuelsaad with those of Littrell and Kuhn. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Abuelsaad teaches that communication between manufacturer and customer for 3d print requests can be improved via video/voice network. (See para. 0014).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, these CRM and method claims recite the steps for executing and storing the functionality recited in claim 4 above and are rejected on the same grounds and rationale as claim 4 above.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell et al. US 2016/0274572 A1 in view of Kuhn et al. US 2018/0165867 A1 and further in view of Vesto US 2014/0277678 A1.
The combination of Littrell and Kuhn does not teach the following limitations, however, Vesto teaches:
5. The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause:
receiving, through the web portal, order data that indicates a ship-to-address, 3D model requirements, an anatomy, and a pathology; [para. 0026; physician orders 3d printing of patients diseased organ model]
in response to receiving the order data, storing the order data in the record in the database. [Fig. 3 310 prints the stored order data]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Vesto with those of Littrell and Kuhn. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Vesto teaches that including pathology data with medical “avatars” can help improve patient engagement. (See para. 0043-0045).
Regarding claims 12 and 19 these CRM and method claims recite the storage and steps for executing the functionality recited in the apparatus claim above and are rejected on the same grounds and rationale as claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haraszati US 2012/0261848 A1 – teaches conversion of DICOM format to 3d printing compatible format STL.
Stump US 2014/0279177 A1 – networked 3d printing system which also generates price quotes for user submitted 3d CAD models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights