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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/11/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a step of selecting at least one additional processing tool from among the plural processing tools” it should be “a step of selecting at least one additional processing tool from among the plurality processing tools”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 6 and 8 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the processor" and “the electronic device” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the processing information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plural supplier information" in line 3. 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a computer readable medium, however, under broadest reasonable interpretation the computer readable medium includes transitory media. While the specification gives example, it does not exclude the transitory media. Therefore, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO, see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particular when the specification is unclear. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Thus, claim 1 is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “a step of obtaining coordinate information and vector information on a three-dimensional object from a design drawing file comprising the three-dimensional object; a step of determining a to-be-processed region for the three-dimensional object by inputting the coordinate information and the vector information into a to-be-processed region-determining model stored; a step of inputting the to-be-processed region into a processing method- determining model stored in the memory, thereby determining a processing method for the three-dimensional object; a step of inputting the processing method into a processing complexity- determining model stored in the memory, and calculating processing complexity of the processing method from processing information obtained from the processing method; and a step of selecting a price for processing the three-dimensional object by inputting the processing complexity into a processing price- estimating model stored.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental steps (human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “obtaining”, “determining”, “inputting”, “inputting” and “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually determine coordinate information with respect to an object and input the processing region for determining price information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “computer program” and “memory” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-9 further describe the identified abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 2-9 (processor, electronic device, computer program) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pielawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0247289) in view of Stump (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0279177).
As to claim 1, Pielawa teaches a computer program comprising:
a step of determining a to-be-processed region for the three-dimensional object by inputting the coordinate information and the vector information into a to-be-processed region-determining model stored in a memory; (para 45, 47 and fig. 1, the system receives a mesh area of a three-dimensional object to be cut)
a step of inputting the to-be-processed region into a processing method- determining model stored in the memory, thereby determining a processing method for the three-dimensional object; (para 45-55 and fig. 1, show that the system receives information corresponding to the cutting area and determines cost based on different cutting areas)
a step of inputting the processing method into a processing complexity- determining model stored in the memory, and calculating processing complexity of the processing method from processing information obtained from the processing method; (para 45-55)
a step of selecting a price for processing the three-dimensional object by inputting the processing complexity into a processing price- estimating model stored in the memory. (para 45-55 and fig. 1, the cost of the cut is determined and presented based on multiple complexity cuts)
Pielawa does not teach:
a step of obtaining coordinate information and vector information on a three-dimensional object from a design drawing file comprising the three-dimensional object;
However, Stump teaches:
a step of obtaining coordinate information and vector information on a three-dimensional object from a design drawing file comprising the three-dimensional object; (para 37, the user uploads a file to the server that corresponds to a three-dimensional object to be created)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to receive a design file for creating a 3D object in Pielawa as taught by Stump. Motivation to do so comes from knowledge taught by Stump that doing so would accurately anticipate the cost of creating the 3D object.
As to claim 8, Pielawa in view of Stump teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Pielawa further teaches:
a step of matching the three-dimensional object with at least one supplier information among the plural supplier information stored in the memory by inputting the processing price, and budget information input by a user into a processing supplier-matching model stored in the memory. (para 45-55)
As to claim 9, Pielawa in view of Stump teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Pielawa does not teach:
a step of calculating a daily production quantity and a maximum production quantity for a processed product of the three- dimensional object based on the processing price and the budget information input by a user;
a step of converting the processing price information, the budget information, the daily production quantity and the maximum production quantity into parameters, respectively;
a step of calculating a similarity between the parameters and the plural supplier information stored in the memory, and selecting at least one supplier information among the plural supplier information based on the calculated similarity;
a step of displaying the selected supplier information through a display
However, Stump teaches:
a step of calculating a daily production quantity and a maximum production quantity for a processed product of the three- dimensional object based on the processing price and the budget information input by a user; (para 55, 57 and 81-82)
a step of converting the processing price information, the budget information, the daily production quantity and the maximum production quantity into parameters, respectively; (para 55 and 57)
a step of calculating a similarity between the parameters and the plural supplier information stored in the memory, and selecting at least one supplier information among the plural supplier information based on the calculated similarity; (para 55, 57 and 81-82)
a step of displaying the selected supplier information through a display. (para 55, 57 and 81-82)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to calculate the quantity of to be produced in Pielawa as taught by Stump. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Stump that doing so would accurately anticipate the cost of creating the 3D object.
The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 2-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628