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 .
This office action is responsive to the communication filed on 09/30/2025.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim objections:
The objection has been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks, page 16-17, regarding technical improvement and ordered combination, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, it is important to note that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Additionally, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), for improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology.” The improvement must be provided by additional elements.
The remarks alleges that the present invention provides improvement by determining whether to execute a replacement process or a modification process and modifying the display model according to CAD-specific modification types (i)-(v). These limitations, as explained in the 101 rejection below, amount to abstract ideas. Improvement cannot be provided by abstract ideas or the improvement cannot be in the abstract idea itself. Other additional elements are data gathering activities that are required for the recited judicial exception; insignificant extra-solution activities; and mere instructions to apply the judicial exception that do not add meaningful limitation to the recited judicial exceptions. Therefore, even when considered as an ordered combination, they do not provide improvement or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks, page 18-19, regarding “obtain[ing] the constraint information from the memory, and determin[ing] display positions of one or more other components constrained to the modified component based on the obtained constraint information; apply[ing] the determined display positions to display models corresponding to the one or more other components; and generat[ing] display control information for updating the display device to show the applied display models”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Jezyk teaches retrieving constraint information to calculate and apply new positions of related components.
To clarify, the remarks alleges that Jezyk does not teach retrieving constraint information to calculate and apply new positions of related components as recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jezyk teaches retrieving constraint information to calculate and apply new positions of related components ([0051]: “An object builder component 706 creates new objects in either model based on attributes or features (e.g., faces) of other object(s) in the other model, and establishes associations between objects/features to represent these dependencies. … Alternatively, the object builder 706 can be invoked automatically in which case rules or heuristics can be used to determine how features/objects in one model map to features/objects in the other model.”) ([0005]: “Creating the detailed object includes creating the detailed object at a location in the detailed model that corresponds to a location in the massing model. … The geometry of the detailed object is updated to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object.”) ([0007]: “Creating an association includes associating a surface on the selected mass object with the detailed object. The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object. Updating the geometry of the detailed object includes conforming the geometry of a detailed object to a modified surface of a selected mass object.”) ([0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model. Modification of a feature of the mass object is detected. The detailed object is identified based on the association. The detailed object is updated to reflect the modification of the feature.”) ([0038]: “In yet a further implementation, an object's location in a model is determined by rules or attributes associated with the object or the system.”) ([0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”) ([0043]: “Propagation of changes between models is based on associations between objects.”) ([0047]: “However, because these windows are associated with the generated wall 202, their position may change if that wall configuration is changed.”).
By the combination explained in the 103 rejection below, the combination of Kudo and Jezyk teaches “obtain the constraint information from the memory, and determine display positions of one or more other components constrained to the modified component based on the obtained constraint information; apply the determined display positions to display models corresponding to the one or more other components; and generate display control information for updating the display device to show the applied display models.”
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, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-8, and 19-20 are directed to a device, which is a machine, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 9, 11-13, and 15-17 are directed to a method, which is a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention. Therefore, claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “accept the modification instruction to modify at least one of the plurality of components” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, accepting an instruction covers someone mentally acknowledging an instruction which amounts to a mental judgment.
The limitations “… determine, based on the process determination information and a type of modification of the accepted modification instruction, whether to execute a replacement process or a modification process”; “when it is determined to execute the replacement process”; and “when it is determined to execute the modification process” under broadest reasonable interpretation cover a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, determining whether or not the modification instruction corresponds to a specific instruction covers a person making a mental judgment.
The limitations “replace the … model with the retrieved standard component model” and “modify the … model according to the accepted modification instruction, the modification to the … model being selected from the group consisting of items (i)-(v) and combinations thereof” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, replacing or modifying a model covers someone making a change to a model mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “determine display positions of one or more other components constrained to the modified component based on the obtained constraint information” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the model and making a mental judgment regarding the appropriate positions of the components.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“a processor”
“a memory configured to store display models of the plurality of components and constraint information among the plurality of components, the display models being visual representations of the plurality of components to be displayed on the display device”
“the constraint information being set by mating constraints of computer-aided design software functions”
“a storage unit configured to store standard component models respectively corresponding to the plurality of components, the storage unit further storing process determination information that associates, for each type of modification for at least one of the plurality of components, whether to perform a replacement process in accordance with a modification instruction, wherein the types of modification include (i) a shape change of the component caused by component-specific operations including expansion, contraction, sliding, or rotation, (ii) a type change of the component, (iii) a size change of the component, (iv) a material change of the component, and (v) a change of an attachment portion of the component to another component”
“a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to”
“automatically …”
“retrieve, from the storage unit, the standard component model corresponding to the component”
“… display …”
“generate display control information for updating the display device to show the replaced standard component model”
“generate display control information for updating the display device to show the modified display model”
“when necessary, obtain the constraint information from the memory”
“apply the determined display positions to display models corresponding to the one or more other components”
“generate display control information for updating the display device to show the applied display models”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “a processor”; “a memory configured to store display models of the plurality of components and constraint information among the plurality of components, the display models being visual representations of the plurality of components to be displayed on the display device”; “a storage unit configured to store standard component models respectively corresponding to the plurality of components, the storage unit further storing process determination information that associates, for each type of modification for at least one of the plurality of components, whether to perform a replacement process in accordance with a modification instruction, wherein the types of modification include (i) a shape change of the component caused by component-specific operations including expansion, contraction, sliding, or rotation, (ii) a type change of the component, (iii) a size change of the component, (iv) a material change of the component, and (v) a change of an attachment portion of the component to another component”; “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to”; and “automatically …” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “the constraint information being set by mating constraints of computer-aided design software functions” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. CAD is an off-the-shelf software that runs on a generic computer. Therefore, setting the associations through CAD amounts to using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “retrieve, from the storage unit, the standard component model corresponding to the component” and “when necessary, obtain the constraint information from the memory” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Retrieving data from a storage is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f). They also amount to data gathering activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements “… display …”; “generate display control information for updating the display device to show the replaced standard component model”; “generate display control information for updating the display device to show the modified display model”; “apply the determined display positions to display models corresponding to the one or more other components”; and “generate display control information for updating the display device to show the applied display models” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer and insignificant extra-solution activities. Displaying data is a generic computer function. Furthermore, they are a post-solution activity of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “retrieve, from the storage unit, the standard component model corresponding to the component” and “when necessary, obtain the constraint information from the memory” furthermore amount to data gathering activities which are akin to a well-known, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
The additional elements “… display …”; “generate display control information for updating the display device to show the replaced standard component model”; “generate display control information for updating the display device to show the modified display model”; “apply the determined display positions to display models corresponding to the one or more other components”; and “generate display control information for updating the display device to show the applied display models” are insignificant extra-solution activities which are akin to a well-known, routine, and conventional activity of presenting offers and gathering statistics. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 3:
The limitation “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to refrain from changing a model number associated with the component when it is determined to execute the modification process” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, not changing a model number covers a person making a mental judgment not to execute the process and not executing the process.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 3 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 4:
The limitation “determine that at least one type of the modification selected from the group consisting of items (i) to (v) causes the processor to execute the modification process” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the type of modification and making a mental judgment on whether or not it causes a modification process.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5:
The limitation “determine that at least one type of instruction selected from modification instructions for a set length representing the amount of deformation in the coil spring, the maximum deflection length of the coil spring, the outer diameter of the coil spring, the free length of the coil spring, the type of the coil spring, and the material of the coil spring, causes the processor to execute the modification process” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the type of instruction and making a mental judgment on whether or not it causes a modification process.
The limitation “wherein the component is a coil spring” merely further limits the type of the component of claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 6:
The limitation “determine that one type of instruction selected from modification instructions for the position of the cable carrier within the stroke, the position of a cable insertion face constituting a face of the link members into which the cable is inserted, the type of the link members, the shape of the link members, the number of links formed by the link members, the attachment direction of the brackets, and the height between the brackets, causes the processor to execute the modification process” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the type of instruction and making a mental judgment on whether or not it causes a modification process.
The limitation “wherein the component is a cable carrier comprising a plurality of connected link members within which a cable is housed, the cable carrier having brackets being disposed on both ends of the link members, and being reciprocatingly moved at a predetermined stroke” merely further limits the type of the component of claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 7:
The limitation “determine that at least one type of instruction selected from modification instructions for the type of the transmission member, the width of the transmission member, the circumferential length of the transmission member, and the diameter of the rotating members, causes the processor to execute the modification process” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the type of instruction and making a mental judgment on whether or not it causes a modification process.
The limitation “wherein the component is a loop-shaped transmission member looped around a plurality of rotating members” merely further limits the type of the component of claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 7 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 8:
The limitation “determine that a modification instruction applying to the shared design aspect of the first component causes the processor to execute the modification process for the first component and the second component” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing and judging whether or not the modification instruction causes a modification.
The limitation “accept the modification instruction applying to the shared design aspect of the first component” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, accepting an instruction covers someone mentally acknowledging an instruction which amounts to a mental judgment.
The limitations “make a modification corresponding to the modification instruction for the shared design aspect” and “make a modification corresponding to the modification instruction for the shared design aspect … without executing the replacement process” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, modifying a model covers someone making a change to a model mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “wherein the plurality of components includes a first component and a second component that have a shared design aspect” merely further limits the plurality of components recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
The additional elements “to the display model of an unmodified first component”; “to the display model of an unmodified second component”; and “automatically display the modified display model of the first component and the modified display model of the second component on the display device” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer and insignificant extra-solution activities. Displaying data is a generic computer function. Furthermore, they are a post-solution activity of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). They also amount to insignificant extra-solution activities which are akin to a well-known, routine, and conventional activity of presenting offers and gathering statistics. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore the similar analysis is applicable.
Furthermore, the limitation “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for execution by a processor, the processor being included in a design assist device for displaying a design object comprised of a plurality of components on a display device to assist in designing the design object” amounts to an additional element that amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 19:
The limitation “adjust the … positions of the one or more other components when a modification to one of the plurality of components affects a relative positioning specified by the constraint information” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, adjusting the positions of other components covers someone changing the positions of the other components mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
The additional element “… display …” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer and insignificant extra-solution activities. Displaying data is a generic computer function. Furthermore, it is a post-solution activity of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). It also amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity which is akin to a well-known, routine, and conventional activity of presenting offers and gathering statistics. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 19 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 20:
The limitation “detect a change in a set length of the modified component” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, detecting changes in a set length covers someone mentally observing the set length and acknowledging changes.
The limitation “determine whether the change in the set length affects a relative positioning specified by the constraint information between the modified component and the one or more other components” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, determining covers someone mentally making a judgement.
The limitation “modify the … model according to the changed set length” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, modifying a model covers someone making changes to the model mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “adjust the … positions of the one or more other components constrained to the modified component” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, adjusting the positions of other components covers someone changing the positions of the other components mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
The additional elements “… display …” and “generate display control information for updating the display to show the modified component and the one or more other components in a manner that reflects the constraint information” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer and insignificant extra-solution activities. Displaying data is a generic computer function. Furthermore, they are a post-solution activity of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). They also amount to insignificant extra-solution activities which are akin to a well-known, routine, and conventional activity of presenting offers and gathering statistics. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 20 is not eligible.
Claims 9, 11-13, and 15-17 are substantially similar to claims 1 and 3-8. Therefore, claims 9, 11-13, and 15-18 are rejected for the similar reasons as claims 1 and 3-8.
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) 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. (JP6155404B2, hereinafter referred to the English translation included in this action), hereinafter Kudo, in view of Jezyk et al. (US20070091119A1), hereinafter Jezyk, in further view of Han et al. (US20140278275A1), hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 1, Kudo discloses
a processor ([0001]: “The present invention relates to a design support method for supporting the design of a designed product consisting of a plurality of parts.”) ([0042]: “This function is realized by the CPU”);
a memory configured to store display models of the plurality of components and constraint information among the plurality of components, the display models being visual representations of the plurality of components to be displayed on the display device ([0040]: “The storage medium may be a recording medium that permanently stores a program, including a semiconductor memory such as a memory (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory)/EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory)/flash ROM.”) ([0030]: “Furthermore, in the method of the present invention, the data of the standard component stored in the standard component data storage section includes data regarding reference dimensions that define the dimensions of the basic shape of the standard component”) ([0008]: “The method of the present invention is a method in which a computer including a display device and an input device displays the shape of a designed product consisting of a plurality of parts on the display device based on component data,”) ([0038]: “A computer 100 that constitutes a CAD system receives information via an input device 110 such as a keyboard and a mouse, a display device 120 such as a display, an output device 130 including a printing device such as a printer, and a communication line such as a LAN (Local Area Network). A communication device 140 that transmits and receives data, a storage device 150 that stores programs and data, and includes an input device 110, a display device 120, and an output device 130 that execute the programs stored in the storage device.”) ([0051]: “The designed product data display section 15 displays, on a display or the like, an image of the designed product indicated by the designed product data stored in the designed product data storage section 12, as shown in FIG. 440 At this time, all the parts included in the designed product are arranged and displayed in the shape indicated by the shape data included in the part data related to the part and in the position indicated by the position data included in the position data.”) ([0032]: “Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”);
a storage unit configured to store standard component models respectively corresponding to the plurality of components ([0030]: “Furthermore, in the method of the present invention, the data of the standard component stored in the standard component data storage section includes data regarding reference dimensions that define the dimensions of the basic shape of the standard component”),
the storage unit further storing process determination information that associates, for each type of modification for at least one of the plurality of components, whether to perform a replacement process in accordance with a modification instruction ([0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) ([0073]: “the data indicating the shaft lengths L of the four shafts are all changed from 100 mm to 80 mm. The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) ([0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) ([0077]: “If the changed shaft is stored as a standard part in the standard parts data storage unit (S12: YES), the designed product data creation unit 11 simply replaces the part data with the shape data with the changed shaft length L.”),
wherein the types of modification include (i) a shape change of the component caused by component-specific operations including expansion, contraction, sliding, or rotation ([0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) ([0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”),
(ii) a type change of the component ([0072]: “As shown in Figure 3, each shaft has data indicating dimensions such as shaft diameter D, shaft length L, and thread length F, as well as product specifications such as data indicating type, material, D tolerance, hardness, and surface treatment. The model number is identified by identifying data.”) ([0112]: “Here, an instruction to change the bolt to another type of bolt is received by the designed product data input unit 14 in the column for displaying the part data of the bolt.”) ([0114]: “The standard parts data storage unit 17 stores data on standard parts and semi-standard parts, and is stored hierarchically according to part types such as shafts, bolts, nuts, etc. … For example, all types of bolts are given a male thread length L and a male thread diameter D as parameters. If these parameters are the same, even parts of different types can be replaced.”) ([0115]: “The step in which the designed product data creation unit 11 replaces the type of component corresponds to the related component changing step of the present invention.”),
(iii) a size change of the component ([0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) ([0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”),
(iv) a material change of the component ([0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) ([0054]: “The standard parts data storage section 17 stores data regarding dimensions, materials, etc. of various standard parts.”) ([0063]: “At this time, a search is made to see if there is any item that matches all the parameters of the standard part data, that is, all the dimensions, materials, surface treatments, etc. indicated by the standard part data.”) ([0074]: “The standard parts search unit 18 searches whether the changed shaft is stored as a standard part in the standard parts data storage unit (S12).”) ([0077]: “If the changed shaft is stored as a standard part in the standard parts data storage unit (S12: YES), the designed product data creation unit 11 simply replaces the part data with the shape data with the changed shaft length L.”), and
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions ([0040]: “The program may be stored in a recording medium, or may be installed and stored in the storage device 150 of the computer 100 via wireless or wired communication. …The storage medium may be a recording medium that permanently stores a program, including a semiconductor memory such as a memory”), which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
accept the modification instruction to modify at least one of the plurality of components ([0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) ([0073]: “The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”);
when it is determined to execute the replacement process: retrieve, from the storage unit, the standard component model corresponding to the component ([0008]: “a search step of searching whether or not the changed part is stored in a standard parts data storage unit that stores data of a plurality of standard parts stored hierarchically”) ([0054]: “The standard parts data storage section 17 stores data regarding dimensions, materials, etc. of various standard parts.”) ([0066]: “If it is found by the search by the standard parts search unit 18 that the changed part exists among the standard parts, the part data related to the part before the change stored in the designed product data storage unit 12 is searched for the part after the change. Replace with standard parts data related to standard parts.”);
replace the display model with the retrieved standard component model ([0066]: “If it is found by the search by the standard parts search unit 18 that the changed part exists among the standard parts, the part data related to the part before the change stored in the designed product data storage unit 12 is searched for the part after the change. Replace with standard parts data related to standard parts.”) ([0008]: “a re-displaying step of displaying the shape of the part on the display device”);
generate display control information for updating the display device to show the replaced standard component model ([0008]: “a re-displaying step of displaying the shape of the part on the display device”); and
when it is determined to execute the modification process: modify the display model according to the accepted modification instruction, the modification to the display model being selected from the group consisting of items (i)-(v) and combinations thereof ([0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”);
generate display control information for updating the display device to show the modified display model ([0008]: “a re-displaying step of displaying the shape of the part on the display device”);
determine display positions of one or more other components constrained to the modified component … ([0051]: “The designed product data display section 15 displays, on a display or the like, an image of the designed product indicated by the designed product data stored in the designed product data storage section 12, as shown in FIG. At this time, all the parts included in the designed product are arranged and displayed in the shape indicated by the shape data included in the part data related to the part and in the position indicated by the position data included in the position data.”) ([0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) ([0033]: “In this case, when a part is changed, the related parts that need to be changed can also be changed automatically.”);
apply the determined display positions to display models corresponding to the one or more other components ([0051]: “The designed product data display section 15 displays, on a display or the like, an image of the designed product indicated by the designed product data stored in the designed product data storage section 12, as shown in FIG. At this time, all the parts included in the designed product are arranged and displayed in the shape indicated by the shape data included in the part data related to the part and in the position indicated by the position data included in the position data.”) ([0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) ([0033]: “In this case, when a part is changed, the related parts that need to be changed can also be changed automatically.”); and
generate display control information for updating the display device to show the applied display models ([0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) ([0033]: “In this case, when a part is changed, the related parts that need to be changed can also be changed automatically.”).
Kudo does not explicitly disclose
the constraint information being set by mating constraints of computer-aided design software functions;
(v) a change of an attachment portion of the component to another component;
automatically determine, based on the process determination information and a type of modification of the accepted modification instruction, whether to execute a replacement process or a modification process;
when necessary, obtain the constraint information from the memory; and
… based on the obtained constraint information.
However, Jezyk teaches
the constraint information being set by mating constraints of computer-aided design software functions ([0003]: “This disclosure generally describes systems, methods and computer programs for integrating massing and detailed design computer-aided design (CAD) models.”) ([0051]: “An object builder component 706 creates new objects in either model based on attributes or features (e.g., faces) of other object(s) in the other model, and establishes associations between objects/features to represent these dependencies. … Alternatively, the object builder 706 can be invoked automatically in which case rules or heuristics can be used to determine how features/objects in one model map to features/objects in the other model.”) ([0005]: “Creating the detailed object includes creating the detailed object at a location in the detailed model that corresponds to a location in the massing model. … The geometry of the detailed object is updated to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object.”) ([0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model.”) ([0007]: “Creating an association includes associating a surface on the selected mass object with the detailed object. The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object. Updating the geometry of the detailed object includes conforming the geometry of a detailed object to a modified surface of a selected mass object.”);
(v) a change of an attachment portion of the component to another component ([0005]: “Creating the detailed object includes creating the detailed object at a location in the detailed model that corresponds to a location in the massing model. … The geometry of the detailed object is updated to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object.”) ([0007]: “Creating an association includes associating a surface on the selected mass object with the detailed object. The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object. Updating the geometry of the detailed object includes conforming the geometry of a detailed object to a modified surface of a selected mass object.”) ([0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”);
when necessary, obtain the constraint information from the memory … based on the obtained constraint information ([0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model. Modification of a feature of the mass object is detected. The detailed object is identified based on the association. The detailed object is updated to reflect the modification of the feature.”) ([0038]: “In yet a further implementation, an object's location in a model is determined by rules or attributes associated with the object or the system.”) ([0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”) ([0043]: “Propagation of changes between models is based on associations between objects.”) ([0047]: “However, because these windows are associated with the generated wall 202, their position may change if that wall configuration is changed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Jezyk on setting constraint information by mating constraints of computer-aided design software functions; modification including a change of an attachment portion of the component to another component; and obtaining the constraint information from the memory and determining positions of components based on the obtained constraint information with the teachings from Kudo on modifying parts and related parts. The motivation to combine would have been that doing so allows eliminating manually recreating the other components associated with the target component when the target component is modified and reducing errors arising from manual work (Jezyk, [0032]: “However, if the massing model is changed after the detailed model is created, the detailed model must be manually recreated which takes time and can introduce errors. Besides eliminating such errors, the approach described in this disclosure allows an architect or other designer to begin to work on the detailed model before the massing model is finalized, and keeps both models synchronized as they change.”).
Therefore, the combination of Kudo and Jezyk teaches
the constraint information being set by mating constraints of computer-aided design software functions (Jezyk, [0003]: “This disclosure generally describes systems, methods and computer programs for integrating massing and detailed design computer-aided design (CAD) models.”) (Jezyk, [0051]: “An object builder component 706 creates new objects in either model based on attributes or features (e.g., faces) of other object(s) in the other model, and establishes associations between objects/features to represent these dependencies. … Alternatively, the object builder 706 can be invoked automatically in which case rules or heuristics can be used to determine how features/objects in one model map to features/objects in the other model.”) (Jezyk, [0005]: “Creating the detailed object includes creating the detailed object at a location in the detailed model that corresponds to a location in the massing model. … The geometry of the detailed object is updated to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model.”) (Jezyk, [0007]: “Creating an association includes associating a surface on the selected mass object with the detailed object. The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object. Updating the geometry of the detailed object includes conforming the geometry of a detailed object to a modified surface of a selected mass object.”);
(v) a change of an attachment portion of the component to another component (Jezyk, [0005]: “Creating the detailed object includes creating the detailed object at a location in the detailed model that corresponds to a location in the massing model. … The geometry of the detailed object is updated to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object.”) (Jezyk, [0007]: “Creating an association includes associating a surface on the selected mass object with the detailed object. The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object. Updating the geometry of the detailed object includes conforming the geometry of a detailed object to a modified surface of a selected mass object.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”);
when necessary, obtain the constraint information from the memory, and determine display positions of one or more other components constrained to the modified component based on the obtained constraint information (Kudo, [0051]: “The designed product data display section 15 displays, on a display or the like, an image of the designed product indicated by the designed product data stored in the designed product data storage section 12, as shown in FIG. At this time, all the parts included in the designed product are arranged and displayed in the shape indicated by the shape data included in the part data related to the part and in the position indicated by the position data included in the position data.”) (Kudo, [0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) (Kudo, [0033]: “In this case, when a part is changed, the related parts that need to be changed can also be changed automatically.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model. Modification of a feature of the mass object is detected. The detailed object is identified based on the association. The detailed object is updated to reflect the modification of the feature.”) (Jezyk, [0038]: “In yet a further implementation, an object's location in a model is determined by rules or attributes associated with the object or the system.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”) (Jezyk, [0043]: “Propagation of changes between models is based on associations between objects.”) (Jezyk, [0047]: “However, because these windows are associated with the generated wall 202, their position may change if that wall configuration is changed.”).
Kudo/Jezyk still does not explicitly teach
automatically determine, based on the process determination information and a type of modification of the accepted modification instruction, whether to execute a replacement process or a modification process.
However, Han teaches distinguishing a modification instruction between a replacement instruction and an adjustment instruction; and determining whether an instruction is a replacement instruction or an adjustment instruction upon receiving the instruction ([0006]: “(d) receiving, from the second user, a first instruction to the first DCS object, and performing a first operation to the geometric shape design corresponding to the first instruction to the first DCS object. In certain embodiments, the first operation includes: … (viii) when the instruction comprises an adjustment modification instruction, adjusting the information of the design change; (ix) when the first instruction comprises a replacement modification instruction, creating a replacement design change to the design change”).
Kudo/Jezyk and Han are analogous because they are in the same field of modifying a CAD model according to an instruction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching for determining whether an instruction is a replacement instruction or an adjustment instruction from Han into Kudo/Jezyk and determine whether an instruction is a special modification instruction that indicates a modification rather than a replacement and execute a corresponding process accordingly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because in modeling a complex CAD object, a design change to the object may modify its geometry as well as influence change on other design related information and properties, and it is therefore necessary to keep track of which type of modification has been made and how such a modification influenced other parts or properties of the object. Using the method proposed by Han would allow all parties involved in the design process to clearly see what type of change has been made to the object and how it influenced the overall structure/property of the object and to make subsequent changes, if necessary, more accurately based on such information (Han, [0004]: “In a computer-aided design (CAD, designing geometric shape and its attributes) process, it is usually needed for multiple parties to discuss and negotiate the design changes. … However, there are many cases the desired changes, especially involving complicated geometry modifications, are difficult, if not impossible, to fully describe by text and be understood by other parties.”) (Han, [0071]-[0073]: “CAD processes is not only the design of the final geometry of a shape but also additional information such as how the shape was constructed, engineering design intent, material and other physical properties, procurement properties, and manufacture attributes, etc. Therefore, for a geometric shape design, a design change may modify geometry as well as influencing change on other design related information and properties. … Consequently, when a geometric shape design involves multiple users or parties, it is critical for all parties participating in the design negotiation to fully understand the design changes proposed by a party, and the result and influence of such changes. Given the complexity of such information and the nature of multi-step design changes, a comprehensive design negotiation system is required. … With these capabilities, the parties involved in design negotiation will be able to review and modify the DCS object back and forth, and finally they can decide to accept or reject the DCS object.).
Therefore, the combination of Kudo/Jezyk and Han teaches
automatically determine, based on the process determination information and a type of modification of the accepted modification instruction, whether to execute a replacement process or a modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0073]: “The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) (Han, [0006]: “(d) receiving, from the second user, a first instruction to the first DCS object, and performing a first operation to the geometric shape design corresponding to the first instruction to the first DCS object. In certain embodiments, the first operation includes: … (viii) when the instruction comprises an adjustment modification instruction, adjusting the information of the design change; (ix) when the first instruction comprises a replacement modification instruction, creating a replacement design change to the design change”).
Regarding claim 3, Kudo/Jezyk/Han teaches
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to refrain from changing a model number associated with the component when it is determined to execute the modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts; a search step of searching whether or not the changed part is stored in a standard parts data storage unit that stores data of a plurality of standard parts stored hierarchically; If stored in the part, a model number replacement step of replacing the model number of the part before the change related to the designed product with the model number related to the standard part; and a part number replacement step based on the shape data of the part after the change that has received the instruction.”) (Kudo, [0009]: “According to the method of the present invention, when the changed part is a standard part, the model number of the changed part is automatically replaced with the model number of the standard part.”) (Kudo, [0024]: “In this case, if the shape of the part after the change matches the shape of the standard part, the model number of the part after the change is automatically replaced with the model number of the standard part.”) (Kudo, [0077]: “If the changed shaft is stored as a standard part in the standard parts data storage unit (S12: YES), the designed product data creation unit 11 simply replaces the part data with the shape data with the changed shaft length L.”) (Kudo, [0089]: “In addition, if the part after the change is not a standard part (S12: NO), a warning will be notified on the display device 120 or the notification device 160 (S16)”) (Han, [0006]: “(d) receiving, from the second user, a first instruction to the first DCS object, and performing a first operation to the geometric shape design corresponding to the first instruction to the first DCS object. In certain embodiments, the first operation includes: … (viii) when the instruction comprises an adjustment modification instruction, adjusting the information of the design change; (ix) when the first instruction comprises a replacement modification instruction, creating a replacement design change to the design change”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Examiner notes that Kudo discloses replacing a model number of a part if the searched part is a standard part (which means it corresponds to a replacement instruction rather than a modification instruction), then it executes a model number replacement process. Otherwise (if it is a modification instruction rather than a replacement instruction), a warning is notified instead, which means a model number replacement process is not executed because the part is not a standard part.
Regarding claim 4, Kudo/Jezyk/Han teaches
determine that at least one type of the modification selected from the group consisting of items (i) to (v) causes the processor to execute the modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0073]: “the data indicating the shaft lengths L of the four shafts are all changed from 100 mm to 80 mm. The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) (Kudo, [0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”).
Regarding claim 8, Kudo/Jezyk/Han teaches
wherein the plurality of components includes a first component and a second component that have a shared design aspect (Jezyk, [0051]: “An object builder component 706 creates new objects in either model based on attributes or features (e.g., faces) of other object(s) in the other model, and establishes associations between objects/features to represent these dependencies. … Alternatively, the object builder 706 can be invoked automatically in which case rules or heuristics can be used to determine how features/objects in one model map to features/objects in the other model.”) (Jezyk, [0005]: “Creating the detailed object includes creating the detailed object at a location in the detailed model that corresponds to a location in the massing model. “) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”) (Jezyk, [0013]: “Creating the first object includes creating a surface on the first object that is equivalent to, or proportional to, a surface on the second object. Creating the first object includes creating the first object at a location in the first model that corresponds to a location in the second model. The first object and the second object have one or more equivalent surface geometries.”), and
determine that a modification instruction applying to the shared design aspect of the first component causes the processor to execute the modification process for the first component and the second component (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model.”) (Jezyk, [0007]: “Creating an association includes associating a surface on the selected mass object with the detailed object. The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object. Updating the geometry of the detailed object includes conforming the geometry of a detailed object to a modified surface of a selected mass object.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”);
accept the modification instruction applying to the shared design aspect of the first component (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model.”) (Jezyk, [0007]: “Creating an association includes associating a surface on the selected mass object with the detailed object. The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object. Updating the geometry of the detailed object includes conforming the geometry of a detailed object to a modified surface of a selected mass object.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”) (Han, [0006]: “(d) receiving, from the second user, a first instruction to the first DCS object, and performing a first operation to the geometric shape design corresponding to the first instruction to the first DCS object. In certain embodiments, the first operation includes: … (viii) when the instruction comprises an adjustment modification instruction, adjusting the information of the design change; (ix) when the first instruction comprises a replacement modification instruction, creating a replacement design change to the design change”);
make a modification corresponding to the modification instruction for the shared design aspect to the display model of an unmodified first component (Jezyk, [0004]: “The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”);
make a modification corresponding to the modification instruction for the shared design aspect to the display model of an unmodified second component without executing the replacement process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model.”) (Jezyk, [0007]: “Creating an association includes associating a surface on the selected mass object with the detailed object. The geometry of the selected mass object is modified based on user input and updating geometry of the detailed object to reflect the modifying of the selected mass object. Updating the geometry of the detailed object includes conforming the geometry of a detailed object to a modified surface of a selected mass object.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”); and
automatically display the modified display model of the first component and the modified display model of the second component on the display device (Kudo, [0008]: “a re-displaying step of displaying the shape of the part on the display device”) (Kudo, [0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 19, Kudo/Jezyk/Han teaches
adjust the display positions of the one or more other components when a modification to one of the plurality of components affects a relative positioning specified by the constraint information (Kudo, [0051]: “The designed product data display section 15 displays, on a display or the like, an image of the designed product indicated by the designed product data stored in the designed product data storage section 12 … At this time, all the parts included in the designed product are arranged and displayed in the shape indicated by the shape data included in the part data related to the part and in the position indicated by the position data included in the position data.”) (Kudo, [0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model. Modification of a feature of the mass object is detected. The detailed object is identified based on the association. The detailed object is updated to reflect the modification of the feature.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 20, Kudo/Jezyk/Han teaches
detect a change in a set length of the modified component (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model. Modification of a feature of the mass object is detected. The detailed object is identified based on the association. The detailed object is updated to reflect the modification of the feature.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”);
determine whether the change in the set length affects a relative positioning specified by the constraint information between the modified component and the one or more other components (Kudo, [0033]: “In this case, when a part is changed, the related parts that need to be changed can also be changed automatically.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model. Modification of a feature of the mass object is detected. The detailed object is identified based on the association. The detailed object is updated to reflect the modification of the feature.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”);
modify the display model according to the changed set length (Kudo, [0008]: “a re-displaying step of displaying the shape of the part on the display device”);
adjust the display positions of the one or more other components constrained to the modified component (Kudo, [0051]: “The designed product data display section 15 displays, on a display or the like, an image of the designed product indicated by the designed product data stored in the designed product data storage section 12 … At this time, all the parts included in the designed product are arranged and displayed in the shape indicated by the shape data included in the part data related to the part and in the position indicated by the position data included in the position data.”) (Kudo, [0032]: “Further, in the method of the present invention, when the computer receives an instruction to change the part from the input device in the receiving step, the computer changes the shape data of another part related to the part for which the instruction to change has been received. Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model. Modification of a feature of the mass object is detected. The detailed object is identified based on the association. The detailed object is updated to reflect the modification of the feature.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”); and
generate display control information for updating the display to show the modified component and the one or more other components in a manner that reflects the constraint information (Kudo, [0051]: “The designed product data display section 15 displays, on a display or the like, an image of the designed product indicated by the designed product data stored in the designed product data storage section 12, as shown in FIG. 440 At this time, all the parts included in the designed product are arranged and displayed in the shape indicated by the shape data included in the part data related to the part and in the position indicated by the position data included in the position data.”) (Kudo, [0032]: “Preferably, the related parts changing step is further executed, and in the redisplaying step, the shape based on the shape data of the part changed in the related parts changing step is also redisplayed.”) (Jezyk, [0010]: “In another aspect, an association is created between a feature of a mass object in a massing CAD model and a detailed object in a detailed CAD model. Modification of a feature of the mass object is detected. The detailed object is identified based on the association. The detailed object is updated to reflect the modification of the feature.”) (Jezyk, [0041]: “The association allows changes to be propagated between the objects. In one implementation, changes to the geometry or location of face(s) of an object in one model cause the corresponding object in the other model to be updated. … For example, if the size or location of a mass object's face changes, the associated detailed object(s) that depend on the face can be modified to reflect the change (e.g., they can be moved or geometrically reconstructed to match the face).”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Claims 9, 11-13, and 18 are substantially similar to claims 1, 3-4 and 8. Therefore, claims 9, 11-13, and 18 are rejected for the similar reasons as claims 1, 3-4 and 8.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, in view of Jezyk, in further view of Han, in further view of Gottschlich (“AMP-CAD: Automatic assembly motion planning using CAD models of parts”).
Regarding claim 5, Kudo/Jezyk/Han teaches determining that at least one type of instruction selected from the modification instructions causes the execution of the modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0073]: “the data indicating the shaft lengths L of the four shafts are all changed from 100 mm to 80 mm. The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) (Kudo, [0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”).
Kudo/Jezyk/Han does not explicitly teach a coil spring; and a set length representing the amount of deformation in the coil spring, the maximum deflection length of the coil spring, the outer diameter of the coil spring, the free length of the coil spring, the type of the coil spring, or the material of the coil spring.
However, Gottschlich teaches modeling a coil spring based on various inherent design parameters of a coil spring (Pg. 162: “a helical-spring would have an attribute to represent its length length when the spring is at rest and the maximal amount of com pression allowed to its length. Like all subclasses of feature, flexible subclasses inherit attributes from the class feature, namely csg, nom, mmc symmetry, and additivep.”).
Kudo/Jezyk/Han and Gottschlich are analogous because they are in the same field of modeling a component of an object based on its design features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the coil spring of Gottschlich into the component of Kudo/Jezyk/Han to provide a coil spring as the component and use its inherent design features to determine at least one of a set length representing the amount of deformation in the coil spring, the maximum deflection length of the coil spring, the outer diameter of the coil spring, the free length of the coil spring, the type of the coil spring, and the material of the coil spring as a special modification instruction when modifying a coil spring.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a coil spring is a flexible component, and identifying different design attributes of a coil spring allows describing its flexibility and thereby helps modeling a coil spring (Gottschlich, Pg. 153: “Flexible parts are parts whose entire shape can be changed without damaging them by exerting a force on the part along certain directions. An example of a flexible part is a helical spring which can be compressed by exerting a force along its cylindrical axis.”) (Gottschlich, Pg. 162: “In order to represent flexible features, we have created a subclass of the class feature called flexible. … The subclasses of flexible will have associated attributes to describe the flexibility of the feature.”).
Therefore, the combination of Kudo/Jezyk/Han and Gottschlich teaches
wherein the component is a coil spring (Gottschlich, Pg. 162: “a helical-spring would have an attribute to represent its length length when the spring is at rest and the maximal amount of com pression allow ed to its length. Like all subclasses of feature, flexible subclasses inherit attributes from the class feature, namely csg, nom, mmc symmetry, and additivep.”), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine that at least one type of instruction selected from modification instructions for a set length representing the amount of deformation in the coil spring, the maximum deflection length of the coil spring, the outer diameter of the coil spring, the free length of the coil spring, the type of the coil spring, and the material of the coil spring, causes the processor to execute the modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0073]: “the data indicating the shaft lengths L of the four shafts are all changed from 100 mm to 80 mm. The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) (Kudo, [0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”) (Gottschlich, Pg. 162: “a helical-spring would have an attribute to represent its length length when the spring is at rest and the maximal amount of com pression allow ed to its length. Like all subclasses of feature, flexible subclasses inherit attributes from the class feature, namely csg, nom, mmc symmetry, and additivep.”).
Claims 15 is substantially similar to claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, in view of Jezyk, in further view of Han, in further view of Gottschlich, in further view of “uxcell R15 7mm x 7mm Internal Size Black Plastic Cable Wire Carrier Drag Chain 1M Length for CNC” by Amazon, hereinafter “the cable carrier by Amazon”.
Regarding claim 6, Kudo/Jezyk/Han/Gottschlich teaches determining that at least one type of instruction selected from the modification instructions causes the execution of the modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0073]: “the data indicating the shaft lengths L of the four shafts are all changed from 100 mm to 80 mm. The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) (Kudo, [0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”).
Kudo/Jezyk/Han/Gottschlich also teaches an articulated part which is made up of links connected to each other allowing a motion at a predetermined stroke, and teaches modeling different articulated parts based on their link types and geometry (Gottschlich, Pg. 153: “An articulated part is made up of rigid pieces which we will refer to as links. … Each type of joint allows some degrees of freedom between the two connecting links, for instance a revolute joint allows for angular rotation of one link with respect to the other about the joint, and similarly a prismatic link allows for relative translational motion along the joint.”) (Gottschlich, Pg. 154: “In [75] it was shown that an articulated part can be modeled in a computer using an undirected graph where the nodes in the graph correspond to the links and the arcs in the graph describe the joints. … there would be attributes associated with the arcs and nodes in the graph, in the former case describing information such as the type of joint and in the latter case describing the geometry of the link.”).
The already provided combination for the coil spring is applicable for the articulated parts because an articulated part is also a nonrigid, flexible assembly component like a coil spring (Gottschlich, Pg. 153: “an articulated part is really just a nonrigid assembly.”).
Kudo/Jezyk/Han/Gottschlich does not explicitly teach a cable carrier; and the position of the cable carrier within the stroke, the position of a cable insertion face constituting a face of the link members into which the cable is inserted, the type of the link members, the shape of the link members, the number of links formed by the link members, the attachment direction of the brackets, or the height between the brackets.
However, the cable carrier by Amazon teaches a cable carrier comprising a plurality of connected link members within which a cable is housed, the cable carrier having brackets being disposed on both ends of the link members, and being reciprocatingly moved at a predetermined stroke (see the picture of a cable carrier on page 1 of the Amazon reference.).
Kudo/Jezyk/Han/Gottschlich and the cable carrier by Amazon are analogous because they involve a component having inherent design features such as link members, mating relationship between the link members, and their movement with respect to each other at a predetermined stroke.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cable carrier by Amazon into the articulated part of Kudo/Jezyk/Han/Gottschlich to model such a cable carrier and determine one of the position of the cable carrier within the stroke, the position of a cable insertion face constituting a face of the link members into which the cable is inserted, the type of the link members, the shape of the link members, the number of links formed by the link members, the attachment direction of the brackets, and the height between the brackets as the special modification instruction.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such cable carriers are widely used, and it would be desirable to model and modify such cable carriers to fit into different situations and needs (Cable carrier by Amazon, Pg. 1: “The Drag chain has been widely used in CNC machine tools, electronic equipment, fire machinery, stone machinery, glass machinery, doors and windows machinery, injection machines, robots, overweight transportation equipment, automated warehouses and so on.”).
Therefore, the combination of Kudo/Jezyk/Han/Gottschlich and the cable carrier by Amazon teaches
wherein the component is a cable carrier comprising a plurality of connected link members within which a cable is housed, the cable carrier having brackets being disposed on both ends of the link members, and being reciprocatingly moved at a predetermined stroke (Gottschlich, Pg. 153: “An articulated part is made up of rigid pieces which we will refer to as links. … Each type of joint allows some degrees of freedom between the two connecting links, for instance a revolute joint allows for angular rotation of one link with respect to the other about the joint, and similarly a prismatic link allows for relative translational motion along the joint.”) (The cable carrier by Amazon), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine that one type of instruction selected from modification instructions for the position of the cable carrier within the stroke, the position of a cable insertion face constituting a face of the link members into which the cable is inserted, the type of the link members, the shape of the link members, the number of links formed by the link members, the attachment direction of the brackets, and the height between the brackets, causes the processor to execute the modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0073]: “the data indicating the shaft lengths L of the four shafts are all changed from 100 mm to 80 mm. The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) (Kudo, [0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”) (Gottschlich, Pg. 154: “In [75] it was shown that an articulated part can be modeled in a computer using an undirected graph where the nodes in the graph correspond to the links and the arcs in the graph describe the joints. … there would be attributes associated with the arcs and nodes in the graph, in the former case describing information such as the type of joint and in the latter case describing the geometry of the link.”) (The cable carrier by Amazon).
Claims 16 is substantially similar to claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the similar reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo, in view of Jezyk, in further view of Han, in further view of Ananth et al. (“DESIGN AND SELECTING THE PROPER CONVEYOR-BELT”), hereinafter Ananth.
Regarding claim 7, Kudo/Jezyk/Han teaches determining that at least one type of instruction selected from the modification instructions causes the execution of the modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0073]: “the data indicating the shaft lengths L of the four shafts are all changed from 100 mm to 80 mm. The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) (Kudo, [0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”).
Kudo/Jezyk/Han does not explicitly teach a conveyor belt; and the type of the transmission member, the width of the transmission member, the circumferential length of the transmission member, or the diameter of the rotating members.
However, Ananth teaches designing a conveyor belt with different inherent design parameters of a conveyor belt (Pg. 1: “This paper provides to design the conveyor system used for which includes belt speed, belt width, motor selection, belt specification, shaft diameter, pulley, gear box selection, with the help of standard model calculation.”).
Kudo/Jezyk/Han and Ananth are analogous because they are in the same field of modeling a component of an object based on its design features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the loop-shaped transmission member of Ananth into the component of Kudo/Jezyk/Han to provide the loop-shaped transmission member as the component and use its inherent design features to determine at least one of the type of the transmission member, the width of the transmission member, the circumferential length of the transmission member, and the diameter of the rotating members as a special modification instruction when modifying a loop-shaped transmission member looped around a plurality of rotating members.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because conveyor belts are used to transport various things and designing and selecting the right conveyor belt for an environment or a type of goods is important for optimizing cost for transporting goods (Ananth, Pg. 1: “Belt Conveyor system is also used in material transport in foundry shop like supply and distribution of molding sand, molds and removal of waste. … During the project design stage for the transport of raw materials or finished products, the choice of the method must favor the most cost effective solution for the volume of material moved.”).
Therefore, the combination of Kudo/Jezyk/Han and Ananth teaches
wherein the component is a loop-shaped transmission member looped around a plurality of rotating members (Ananth, Pg. 1: “This paper provides to design the conveyor system used for which includes belt speed, belt width, motor selection, belt specification, shaft diameter, pulley, gear box selection, with the help of standard model calculation.”), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine that at least one type of instruction selected from modification instructions for the type of the transmission member, the width of the transmission member, the circumferential length of the transmission member, and the diameter of the rotating members, causes the processor to execute the modification process (Kudo, [0008]: “a step of receiving an instruction to change at least one of the plurality of parts”) (Kudo, [0073]: “the data indicating the shaft lengths L of the four shafts are all changed from 100 mm to 80 mm. The step of receiving an instruction to change the dimensions of a part by the designed product data input section 14 corresponds to the receiving step of the present invention.”) (Kudo, [0020]: “Further, for example, in the method of the present invention, the instruction to change the component includes an instruction to change the shape of at least one part of the component.”) (Kudo, [0045]: “The part data includes the file name of the part data, part name, quantity, model number, manufacturer name, dimensions, material, surface treatment, price, delivery date, shape data, etc.”) (Kudo, [0071]: “The designer uses the designed product data input unit 14 to change the shape of any part of the designed product created using the CAD system (S11). Here, it is assumed that the CAD system is used to change the shaft length L of one of the four shafts from 100 mm to 80 mm.”) (Ananth, Pg. 1: “This paper provides to design the conveyor system used for which includes belt speed, belt width, motor selection, belt specification, shaft diameter, pulley, gear box selection, with the help of standard model calculation.”).
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the similar reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banta et al. (US20140379309A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIN JEONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Renee Chavez can be reached on (571) 270-1104. 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.
/HEIN JEONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186