DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In an Amendment filed on 10/10/2025, Claim 2 was previously. Therefore, Claims 1, 3-17 are still pending in this Application.
Request for 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/amendments
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 11, with respect to objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, objections to the claims have been withdrawn due to amendments to it.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 11, with respect to rejections to claims 1, 3-13 and 17 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, see the new rejections under 35 USC 112(a).
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 11-16, with respect to rejections to claims 1, 3-13 and 17 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and they are respectfully not persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 101 have been maintained.
On page 12, The Applicant argues that:
“…is improperly categorized as an abstract idea and provides an on construction site CNC-parameter generating method in an isometric projection environment for the control and processing of tubes by at least one CNC-tube bending machine, as well as an associated method. Furthermore, the claims recite a specific set of rules and processes for changes in CNC machine operations, such as directional control of the machine”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
The argument that the claimed subject matter is “for the control and processing of tubes by at least one CNC-tube bending machine and for the control and processing of tubes by at least one CNC-tube bending machine”, it is an intended use of the claimed subject matter. There is not specific and positive control of a CNC machines in the claims and not “directional control” of the machine as argued.
If the claims included or recited limitations related to “wherein the generated vectors are converted into a CSV file and/or G-code automatically; and controlling the CNC-tube bending machine by using the converted vectors to process and produce tubes according to the converted vectors”, then, this might constitute an integration into a practical application.
On page 13, The Applicant further argues that:
“…there is no indication that a person could reasonably generate vectors, compare absolute values to threshold values of the vectors, and then generate additional vectors. Instead, Instead, the claims recite a multi-step evaluation that looks at and compares different vectors and makes adjustments based on evaluations and determinations from those comparisons. This process should be considered as several steps of manipulation applied to a real world process…”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
In response to the arguments above, the disclosure paragraph 0002 clearly states that using isometric paper to drawing and generate vectors/lines to be used in the manufacture of tube bending was performed known to be performed manually. The generation and comparison steps are part of the abstract idea as explained in the rejection.
On page 13-14, the Applicant further argues that:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the claim is integrated into a practical application. For example, embodiments of the present disclosure are directed toward improvements in control of CNC pipe bending machines:
[0134] “one embodiment of the invention the tool has an ability to generate CSV-files (comma-separated values) containing X, Y and Z coordinates, see FIG. Sb . CNC-machines traditionally operates with vectorized data formats, however some CNC-machines can accept other formats such as raster formats and convert it internally. The CSV files generated by the tool may be vectorized to be compatible with CNC-machine languages. If the CSV-files are in a raster format they may have to be converted to vectorized format in the CNC-machine or on an intermediate platform between the tool and the CNC-machine. The CSV-files may be converted to files for CNC-machines such as G-data files in the tool…;
[0135]…
[0136]… Accordingly, the practical application of claim 1 is directed
toward improved monitoring and control of CNC pipe bending machines”.
In response to the arguments above, the improvements as recited or agued previously are not reflected in the claim subject matter. The invention as claimed does not recite any control of a CNC bending machine being improved since there is not specific control of the machine producing tubes.
On page 14-15, the Applicant further argues that:
“Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites a set of steps that
improves a technical field related to CNC pipe bending machines. Present technology requires an operator to sketch the tubing path by hand, do any calculations needed, and then manually plot the coordinates into a CNC tube-bending machine. See, e.g., Specification at , i [0002]. Embodiments of the present technology overcome the drawbacks with sophisticated vector analysis, thereby allowing an accurate prediction of what tubing will look like after machining is completed. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the technical field is improved by the present claims.
In response to the arguments above, the improvements as recited previously are not reflected in the claim subject matter. The claims do not recite any accurate prediction of what the tubing will look after machining. The invention as best understood is in the improvement of providing a tool for automatically generating vectors representing drawings of tubes and manufacturing tubes according to the generated vectors, wherein the generation of vector was a known process and performed manually. However, as stated before, the claims do not recite the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
On page 15, the Applicant further argues that:
“Claims 1 and 17 are Related to Identified Eligible Claims.. Claims 1 and 17 provides at least the level of practical applicability as Example 40 and, as a result, is patent eligible when evaluated in view of the January 2019 Guidance… Claim 1 may similarly be evaluated and found to recite patent-eligible subject matter. For example, claims 1 and 17 include a similar process where generated information (e.g., vectors) are analyzed and, upon making another determination (e.g., comparing the absolute value of the vector with a threshold value), additional steps take place to modify operation of a physical object (e.g., a CNC pipe-bending machine). In other words, much like Example 40, the data collection and application steps proceed upon determining that an adjustment does not exceed threshold value. Claims 1 and 17 describes a practical improvement in the same way that Example 40 does, and as a result, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under § 101.”.
In response to the arguments above, the claimed subject matter and Example 40 are not related and the claimed subject matter of the current inventions such as comparing if a value does not exceed a threshold is not sufficient to overcome the rejection under 101 and in example 40 the related comparison limitations was found to be an abstract idea. Furthermore, as stated before the modification of components and control in the CNC bending machine is not specified in detail as argued.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 19, with respect to rejections to claims 1, 3 and 17 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been maintained.
The arguments are respectfully unpersuasive because they are directed to limitation that are contingent limitations recited in a method that are not required to be performed as previously explained in the previous office actions and repeated in the claim interpretations below.
The Examiner suggest the Applicant to change the claimed subject matter to a “system,” or “machine” instead or process/method for claims 1 and 17 in order to avoid the contingency limitations not being performed or to positively recite the contingency limitations.
The examiner Greer that while Greer and Joshi does not explicitly teach the rued limitations, these arguments are unpersuasive because they are directed to subject matter that is contingent or optional and which is not performed in the process.
However, the argued limitations are well known and taught by Byrd (US 20180318899) which teaches a CNC bending system comprising converting tube data/drawings including vector data to machine readable code, and controlling the CNC-tube bending machine by using the converted data (see 0019 and 0039); Shapiro (US 20180150055) teaches a system comprising converting vector data to machine readable code, and controlling a CNC machine by using the converted data (0052); Dweik et al (US 20180260501) teaches converting vector to vector file. Slaughter (7930054) teaches translating the vector code to machine code. However, the Examiner was not persuaded to change the grounds of rejection based on the claimed interpretation of the contingent limitations.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 19, with respect to rejections to claims 14-16 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been maintained.
On page 19, the Applicant argues that:
“In response, Applicant amended Claim 14 in the last response to specify that the portable device is "touch-screen." There is no indication that the mobile device of Osamu is touch-screen. The Examiner was unpersuaded by this argument, alleging that Osamu describes "tapping" the screen. The Examiner is mistaken. The problem here is that Osamu is published only in Japanese. The rough Google machine translation of the reference appears to use the word "tapping" when what is really meant is clicking various items on the screen with a cursor and a mouse. The Osamu screen is not touch screen as required by the claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 14-16 are patentable over the prior art as relied on by the Examiner Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 14-16 are patentable over the prior art as relied on by the Examiner”. These arguments are respectfully not persuasive.
The Applicant has not provided evidence that Osamu portable device comprises mouse. Osamu clearly teaches a screen that creates piping diagrams simply by tapping on the screen using an smartphone (see page 2 lines 29-30). Tapping on a screen means that the screen is a touch screen. Touch screen devices inventions date back to 1960’s ( see the NPL reference provided. Google AI “The concept of touchscreen technology dates back to the 1960s, with engineers like E.A. Johnson at the Royal Radar Establishment in Malvern, England, developing a touchscreen for traffic control). Also, touchscreen phones inventions date back iPhone 2007, IBM Simon 1994, etc.
Osamu clearly teaches in Fig. 3 a portable device such as smartphone (see page 2 FIG. 3 shows a screen on which a piping diagram is drawn using the piping drawing system of the present invention on a smartphone which is a portable mobile terminal. (2) is an enlarged view of as smartphone screen). Therefore, the Osamu reference teaches or suggest the argued limitations above. Thus, The arguments are respectfully not persuasive.
Claims Interpretations/comments
The claims 1, 3-13 and 17 include a method reciting a plurality of contingent limitations. The claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure. MPEP 2111 states “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. In case of claim 1, only step a) need to be performed in the claim, while steps b-g) are not required to be performed because steps a), recite a loop for the steps. Also, dependent claims 3-13 are not required to be performed because they do not depend on steps a) to be executed/performed. For instance, in claim 1 if a user inputs a point, in a non-drawing area (the isometric grid pattern), then, the algorithm will always return to the first step, and the rest of the steps will never happen (see Fig. 8a step 002 and step 001).
If claim 1 was directed to a system or apparatus/device and included the limitations/steps of claim 1, then, the prior art of record must teach or suggest all of the limitations even when contingent limitations are recited in the system or apparatus claim. In other words, the claims would be allowable if the claimed subject matter or steps of claim 1 were included in a system/apparatus claim since not prior art has been found for the combination of limitation of claim 1 and 17. For instance, MPEP 2111.04 Il recite “...as it was found in PTAB “when analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur".
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, 3-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1 and 17 recite(s) in part:
“aii) verifying correctness of the first input location parameter,
wherein determining if the first input parameter does not fit correctly in a set isometric grid pattern, continue at point ai), and wherein determining if the first input parameter does fit correctly in a set isometric grid pattern, continue at point aiii);
aiii) wherein determining if the first input location parameter is a first point, continue at step aiv), and wherein determining if the first input location is not a first point, continue at av);
aiv) set the first input location parameter as the first point, and set last point equal with first point, continue at point ai); and
av) create a vector between the first input location parameter and a last point
b) carrying out a verification step by the microprocessor by determining if the absolute value of length of the first vector greater than a threshold value, Th, wherein, in response to determining that the absolute value of length of the first vector is greater than a threshold value (Th), continue to step c), and wherein, in response to determining that the absolute value of length of the first vector is not greater than a threshold value (Th), continue to step a);
c) assigning the first vector to one of the six directions, NORTH, UP, WEST, SOUTH, DOWN and EAST;
d) determining if a vector direction was assigned to the first vector, wherein, in response to determining that a vector direction was not assigned to the first vector, continue to step e), and wherein, in response to determining that vector direction was not assigned to the first vector, continue to step a);
e) generating further vectors by tapping once on the touch screen.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of collection or generating of data such as points and vectors, vector assignment (steps b), and c)), evaluations (steps aii, aiii, aiv, and (b) verification), and judgement (step d) which are steps easily performed mentally but for the recitation of generic computer components such as a microprocessors and touch display. That is other, than reciting a microprocessor and touch screen, nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or by using pen and paper. For example, but for the “microprocessor and touch screen” language, the claim encompasses the user to mentally or by using pen and paper as clearly pointed in the origan disclosure (0002) to generate two points, determine or assign a distance, assign a direction, verify visually if the vector was correctly assigned the correct direction by mentally corroborating the assignment, determine if the length of a vector or line is greater than a desired value or standard. Steps aii-aiv, involve the verification of determining if a first location parameter (point), fits in an isometric grid pattern or not, and creating a first vector. This step is performed by a person by drawing a first point in an isometric drawing, the user can visually inspect of the point was drawn in the isometric paper, and if the user agrees by visually and mentally deciding so, the user can generate a vector by manually drawing another point in any direction, the user decides if at least one or more points were created/drawn and when two points were created, a vector/line is generated, if only one point was created then, another points is created. Claim 17 further recites the steps of: c1) to set origin Y = 0 and X = 0 to upper left corner; c2) to create a horizontal reference vector for measurement of first vector component angles; c3) to carry out a first vector component angle test for assignment of one of the directions: NORTH, UP, WEST, SOUTH, DOWN and EAST. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of collection or generating of data such as points Y and X, and drawing these points on a piece of paper, generating a horizontal reference vector/line to be used in a vector component angle test. Wherein the vector component test includes several steps of comparing several values as suggested in claim 10 and which can per performed mentally and/or manually by a user using pen and paper. Thus, these steps are mental process steps or abstract idea. Nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or by using pen and paper. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of control unit and/or computer components does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as a microprocessor for carrying out the verification step b), the use of a touch display to input two values and generate a vector, which are computer components such as a computer, and a display, and are recited in higher level of generality, generically link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))). Moreover, the additional element of a) generating a first vector on a touch screen by tapping twice on the touch screen, the touch screen being in communication with a microprocessor device, e) generating further vectors by tapping once on the touch screen, are simply data outputting functions by the use of generic computer. Further, the additional elements recited in the abstract such as generating method in an isometric projection environment for the control and processing of tubes by at least one CNC-tube bending machine and g) to transfer dimensional values from the microprocessor device to one or more computers, where the one or more computers are in communication with one or more CNC-tube bending machines, wherein the vectors are converted into a plain text file and/or a CNC-machine readable file; and controlling the CNC-tube bending machine by using the converted vectors which are recited in high level of generality and are considered tangential limitations and generically link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use such as generically controlling a bending CNC machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))) and also the step of data output from a generic computer to another generic computer. For instance, none of the claims recite that the generated vectors are transformed/converted to CNC parameters to produce a tube bended according to the vector layout input by an operator as suggested in the disclosure but not recited in the claims. Moreover, the additional elements such as to transfer dimensional values from the microprocessor device to one or more computers and converting data such as vector into a file or machine readable file are considered insignificant extra solution activities of data conversion (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II). Furthermore, the additional element of f) to input dimensional values for the vectors on the touch screen is considered a considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the inventions are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements such as a microprocessor for carrying out the verification step b), and the use of a touch display to input two values and generate a vector, and a) to generate a first vector on a touch screen by tapping twice on the touch screen, the touch screen being in communication with a microprocessor device, e) to generate further vectors by tapping once on the touch screen, are simply data outputting functions by the use of generic computer, and which are computer components such as a computer, and a display, and are recited in higher level of generality are recited in high level of generality and are considered insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(g) “Some cases have identified insignificant computer implementation as an example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See e.g., Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323-24, 101 USPQ2d 1785, 1789-90 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1280-81, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Other cases have considered these types of limitations as mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about insignificant computer implementation…”; also, see MPEP 2106.05 (f) “…Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art").). Furthermore, the additional steps of “g) to transfer dimensional values from the microprocessor device to one or more computers”, e.g. steps of transferring data/output function from one computer to another computer are considered insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) that have been recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) … The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g.,). This step g) transferring of data has been also recognized as mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f 2) “… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)). Furthermore, the additional elements such as generating method in an isometric projection environment for the control and processing of tubes by at least one CNC-tube bending machine and g) to transfer dimensional values from the microprocessor device to one or more computers, where the one or more computers are in communication with one or more CNC-tube bending machines, wherein the vectors are converted into a plain text file and/or a CNC-machine readable file; and controlling the CNC-tube bending machine by using the converted vectors which are recited in high level of generality and are considered tangential limitations and generically link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use such as CNC bending machines (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))). These tangential limitations do not impose meaningful limits to the abstract idea described above. The converting data such as vectors into a file or machine readable file are considered insignificant extra solution activities of data conversion (see MPEP 2106.05(c) and 2106.05(d)II) and which well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of pipe drawing and manufacturing via CNC machines. It is inherent that a CNC machine uses converted/compiled/transformed machine code to perform the command to produce the bent pipes. For instance, Byrd (US 20180318899) teaches a CNC bending system comprising converting tube data/drawings including vector data to machine readable code, and controlling the CNC-tube bending machine by using the converted data (see 0019 and 0039); Shapiro (US 20180150055) teaches a system comprising converting vector data to machine readable code, and controlling a CNC machine by using the converted data (0052); Dweik et al (US 20180260501) teaches converting vector to vector file. Slaughter (7930054) teaches translating the vector code to machine code. Finally, the additional element of f) to input dimensional values for the vectors on the touch screen is considered a considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of necessary and/or mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) to generate parameters for the vector generation, wherein a vector is known to have a magnitude (length) and direction (angle) to be considered a vector.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-13 depends on claim 1 and thus recites the limitations and the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Each of the Claims 3-13 further recites additional limitations that as drafted, are a process or steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental process which is identified as an example of mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of collection or generating of data such as points and vectors, evaluations (steps of verifications and tests/testing in claims 3-13), and judgement (step d) which are steps easily performed mentally and/or by the use of pen and paper. Thus, the claims 3-13 further recites a mental process. Accordingly, the additional elements found in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract ideas of claims 3-13 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as clearly pointed out above. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 17, respectively, recites “…wherein the vectors are converted into a plain text file…”. These limitations do not have support in the disclosure as originally filed. The disclosure does not define the term “plain text file”. In the broadest reasonable interpretation, a plain text file is a file that has an extension .txt. The disclosures suggests generating pdf files (.pdf) or csv files none of which are plain text files (see Fig. 5a-b PDF and/or CSV files can be generated; also, see [0134] the g-code or G-data is converted to control the machine). Thus, there is not suggestion or plain text file in the disclosure as filed.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greer et al (US 6757576) in view of Joshi et al (US 20130305172) and Byrd et al (US 20180318899).
As per claim 1, Greer teaches an on construction site CNC-parameter generating method in an isometric projection environment for the control and processing of tubes by at least one CNC-tube bending machine at least (see Fig. 1 shows an isometric projection environment to generate vector lines an drawings which are converted to CNC data; also, see Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. Based on the generated vector a tube being object is generated and then converted to CNC machine parameters used to create a bent tube/pipe.; also, see Col 2 lines 44-65. Note, this is an intended use,) comprising:
a) generating a first vector on a touch screen by tapping twice on the touch screen, the touch screen being in communication with a microprocessor device (see Fig. 2 vector 210; also, see Col 6 lines 12-26 “…the user may sequentially click a pointing device (e.g., a computer mouse, electronic pen, etc.) at points 210, 212, 214, 216, and 218… Indeed, virtually any method or means, now known or later developed, for entering points in a drawing file could be used to input points 210, 212, 214, 216, and 218.”, thus point 210 and 212 using an electronic pen suggests a touch screen and tapping);
While Greer teaches determining the length of each segment/vector line (see Col 9 lines 27-45 and see Fig. 6), Greer does not explicitly teach:
and where step a) further comprises:
ai) tapping a first input location parameter on the touch screen, the touch screen being in communication with the microprocessor device;
aii) verifying correctness of the first input location parameter,
wherein determining if the first input parameter does not fit correctly in a set isometric grid pattern, continue at point ai), and wherein determining if the first input parameter does fit correctly in a set isometric grid pattern, continue at point aiii);
aiii) wherein determining if the first input location parameter is a first point, continue at step aiv), and wherein determining if the first input location is not a first point, continue at av);
aiv) set the first input location parameter as the first point, and set last point equal with first point, continue at point ai); and
av) create a vector between the first input location parameter and a last point;
b) carrying out a verification step by the microprocessor by determining if the absolute value of length of the first vector greater than a threshold value, Th, wherein, in response to determining that the absolute value of length of the first vector is greater than a threshold value (Th), continue to step c), and wherein, in response to determining that the absolute value of length of the first vector is not greater than a threshold value (Th), continue to step a);
c) assigning the first vector to one of the six directions, NORTH, UP, WEST, SOUTH, DOWN and EAST;
d) determining if a vector direction was assigned to the first vector, wherein, in response to determining that a vector direction was not assigned to the first vector, continue to step e), and wherein, in response to determining that vector direction was not assigned to the first vector, continue to step a);
e) generating further vectors by tapping once on the touch screen;
f) inputting dimensional values for the vectors on the touch screen; and,
g) transferring the dimensional values from the microprocessor device to one or more computers, where the one or more computers are in communication with one or more CNC- tube bending machines, wherein the vectors are converted into a plain text file and/or a CNC-machine readable file; and
controlling the CNC-tube bending machine by using the converted vectors.
However, Joshi , teaches a system comprising ai) tapping a first input location parameter on the touch screen, the touch screen being in communication with a microprocessor device (see Fig. 3 step 304 tapping a first location; also, see Fig. 1 electronic device with touch screen; also, see [0012] “the electronic device 102 includes a drawing application 108 that can be implemented as computer-executable instructions, such as a software application, and executed by one or more processors to implement the various embodiments of pen tool editing modes described herein), aii) verifying correctness of the first input location parameter (this limitation has been interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of disclosure as a verification of a point is within or outside a drawing area, see original disclosure [0180] BOX 2 step 002; see Fig. 3 step 306), wherein determining if the first input parameter does not fit correctly in a set isometric grid pattern, continue at point ai) (see Fig. 3 step 310, 310, 314, leads to step 304 which is step ai) input a new point; also, see [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Greer’s invention as taught above to include steps of ai) tapping a first input location parameter on the touch screen, the touch screen being in communication with a microprocessor device, aii) verifying correctness of the first input location parameter, wherein determining if the first input parameter does not fit correctly in a set isometric grid pattern, continue at point ai) as taught by Joshi in order to allow a user to enter a new point and try to continue with the drawing of lines/vectors (see Fig. 3 and see [0031] “…then the method continues at block 304 to receive a subsequent pen tool input…”).
(The other steps of claim 1 and claims 3-13 have not been patentable weight because MPEP 2111 states “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. In case of claim 1, steps a) and b) need to be performed in the claim, while steps c-g) are not required to be performed because steps a), and b) recite a loop for these steps when executed)).
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrd et al (US 20180318899 cited in the IDS) in view of Osamu (JP 2011090355 as supported by the machine translation provided).
As per claim 14, Byrd teaches a CNC-parameter generating system in an isometric projection environment for the control and processing of tubes by at least one CNC-tube bending machine (see [0039-0039] “. The pipe design may be a two-dimensional (2D) or a three-dimensional (3D) rendering in the CAD system 402…”) at least comprising:
a) a first operator in operable communication with a touch screen see [0035] “the HMI operator interface 134 may include various input and output devices (e.g., mouse, keyboard, monitor, touch screen…” [0045] “an operator may open a CAD model of a piping system utilizing a user interface, run a translation tool on the piping system, select a section of the piping system, select a direction to run a pipe spool through a pipe bending machine (e.g., CNC pipe bending machine),):
a1) an input unit (see GUI provided by CAD system 32 in figure 2; CAD system 402 in figure 4; also, see [0045] “…an operator may open a CAD model of a piping system utilizing a user interface, run a translation tool on the piping system, select a section of the piping system…”);
paragraph 26 );
a2) a software program for CNC-parameter generation in operable communication with the input device (see [0038-0039] “…A pipe design may be produced in a CAD system 402. The pipe design may be a two-dimensional (2D) or a three-dimensional (3D) rendering in the CAD system 402. In some embodiments, the pipe design may be imported from a data store 404. The data store 404 may contain part files and/or assembly files that may be manipulated in the CAD system 402. Further the CAD system 402 and the data store 404 be communicatively coupled to a processor (e.g., processor 24). The processor may be configured to execute a set of instructions to translate the pipe design to operator-readable and/or machine-readable instructions utilizing model translation logic 406 (e.g., a model translation tool). In some embodiments, the model translation logic 406 may iterate through the pipe design while gathering relevant information on each portion (e.g., bend) of the pipe design. More specifically, the model translation logic 406 may mine underlying, data representative of the pipe design to gather the relevant information…”);
a3) a display unit in operable communication with the software program configured to display parameters generated by the software program on an isometric pattern including (see [0043] “Accordingly, the model-based output may be displayed on a screen and/or a printed paper in a readable format (e.g., spread sheet, text-based document, etc.). In some embodiments, the model-based piping instructions may include computer readable instructions (e.g., G-code). As such, a pipe bending machine (e.g., CNC pipe bending machine) may receive the model-based output via electronic communication (e.g., via Bluetooth, WIFI, a database, a data storage device, internet, etc.)”; also, see Fig. 7 and [0050].);
b) a communication interface facilitating communication between the (see communication between the CAD system 402 and Output 408 or 409 in Fig. 4; also, also, see [0043] “…As such, a pipe bending machine (e.g., CNC pipe bending machine) may receive the model-based output via electronic communication (e.g., via Bluetooth, Wi-Fi___33, a database, a data storage device, internet, etc.).), and
c) a communication interface facilitating communication between the first computer and at least a first CNC tube bending machine (see Fig. 4 see communication between the Output 409 and the pipe bending machine in figure 4).; also, see [0039] “…In some embodiments, the machine-readable pipe bending instructions 409 may be in the form of machine-readable code (e.g., a numerical control programming language (e.g., G code)) that is readable by a machine (e.g., a computer numeric control (CNC) machine)…”, thus, a communication interface is implicitly taught at the pipe bending machine; also, see [0043] “…As such, a pipe bending machine (e.g., CNC pipe bending machine) may receive the model-based output via electronic communication (e.g., via Bluetooth, Wi-Fi___33, a database, a data storage device, internet, etc.).).
While Byrd teaches the system includes an interface with touch screen, Byrd does not explicitly teach the device is a touch-screen portable device.
However, Osamu teaches a system comprising a touch-screen portable device with an input unit and display unit and a communication interface to communicate with one or more computers (see page 2 lines 27-30 “FIG. 3 shows a screen on which a piping diagram is drawn using the piping drawing system of the present invention on a smartphone which is a portable mobile terminal. (2) is an enlarged view of a smartphone screen” also, see page 3, lines 10-13 “When this position is tapped (one click), as shown in(2), the pipe line cursor is displayed radially along the grid line around the tap point. Here, when an arbitrary position of any of the piping line cursors is tapped as an end point, a piping line is drawn from the start point to the end point as shown in (3)”; also, see Fig. 5 and see page 4 “drawing system of the present invention is incorporated…S-4) Piping diagrams can be added and modified on site.
S-5) A piping diagram and various types of data created on site can be transmitted to a management server by data communication and electronically documented to manage a piping diagram and a security ledger.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Byrd to include a touch-screen portable device with an input unit and display unit and a communication interface to communicate with one or more computers as taught by Osamu in order to allow an operator to generate and facilitate generating piping diagrams on-site (e.g. where the pipes are to be installed) (see page 4).
As per claim 15, Byrd-Osamu teaches the CNC-parameter generating system according to claim 14, at least further comprising: Byrd further teaches d) a second computer in operable communication with the (see 0039 Information that is gathered/calculated with the translation logic 406 may be compiled into operator-readable pipe bending instructions 408 and/or machine-readable pipe bending instructions 409. As illustrated, the operator-readable pipe bending instructions 408 and/or machine-readable pipe bending instructions 409 may be provided in more than one form.).
Osamu teaches the portable device above in claim 14.
Osamu further teaches b) a communication interface facilitating communication between the portable device and at least a first computer (see Fig. 9 the portable device is connected to a server for storing in a security ledger the piping diagram).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Byrd’s invention to include a communication interface facilitating communication between the portable device and at least a first computer as taught by Osamu in order to store information about the piping diagram created in the portable device in a security DB or ledger (see page 2 par. 5 “ Acquire customer information from the customer DB, acquire equipment information from the partsmaster DB, draw a piping diagram with a portable mobile terminal device using the
Piping creation system, and provide the created piping diagram on the management server The piping diagram DB is stored in association with the security ledger DB”. The claimed inventions claims a first computer 503 for documentation and second computer 506 for compilation). Thus, the combination of Byrd-Osamu teaches the combination of a portable device, a first computer and a second computer and respective interfaces to transmit data).
As per claim 16, Byrd-Osamu teaches the CNC-parameter generating system according to claim 15, at least further comprising: Byrd further teaches
e) a tubing spool for loading into the CNC tube bending machine (see 0039 “…The pipe bending machine 410 may intake a pipe spool and bend it to embody the pipe design utilizing information provided in the machine-readable pipe bending instructions 409….”).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greer et al (US 6757576) in view of Claros de Luna et al (US 20170017314).
As per claim 17, Greer teaches an on construction site CNC-parameter generating method in an isometric projection environment for the control and processing of tubes by at least one CNC-tube bending machine (see Fig. 1 shows an isometric projection environment to generate vector lines an drawings which are converted to CNC data; also, see Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. Based on the generated vector a tube being object is generated and then converted to CNC machine parameters used to create a bent tube/pipe.; also, see Col 2 lines 44-65. Note, this is an intended use, ) at least comprising:
a) generating a first vector on a touch screen by tapping twice on the touch screen, the touch screen being in communication with a microprocessor device (see Fig. 2 vector 210; also, see Col 6 lines 12-26 “…the user may sequentially click a pointing device (e.g., a computer mouse, electronic pen, etc.) at points 210, 212, 214, 216, and 218… Indeed, virtually any method or means, now known or later developed, for entering points in a drawing file could be used to input points 210, 212, 214, 216, and 218.”, thus point 210 and 212 using an electronic pen suggests a touch screen and tapping);
While Greer teaches determining the length of each segment/vector line (see Col 9 lines 27-45 and see Fig. 6), Greer does not explicitly teach:
b) carrying out a verification step by the microprocessor by determining if the absolute value of length of the first vector greater than a threshold value, Th, wherein, in response to determining that the absolute value of length of the first vector is greater than a threshold value (Th), continue to step c), and wherein, in response to determining that the absolute value of length of the first vector is not greater than a threshold value (Th), continue to step a);
c) assigning the first vector to one of the six directions, NORTH, UP, WEST, SOUTH, DOWN and EAST, where the vector assignment step c) further comprises:
c1) to set origin Y = 0 and X = 0 to upper left corner of the touch screen;
c2) to create a horizontal reference vector for measurement of first vector component angles;
c3) to carry out a first vector component angle test for assignment of one of the directions: NORTH, UP, WEST, SOUTH, DOWN and EAST;
d) determining if a vector direction was assigned to the first vector, wherein, in response to determining that a vector direction was not assigned to the first vector, continue to step e), and wherein, in response to determining that vector direction was not assigned to the first vector, continue to step a);
e) generating further vectors by tapping once on the touch screen;
f) inputting dimensional values for the vectors on the touch screen; and,
g) transferring the dimensional values from the microprocessor device to one or more computers, where the one or more computers are in communication with one or more CNC-tube bending machines, , wherein the vectors are converted into a plain text file and/or a CNC-machine readable file; and controlling the CNC-tube bending machine by using the converted vectors..
However, Claros de Luna teaches a touch screen to capture user input comprising tapping twice on a screen and a) generating a first vector (a distance or line between two points represents a vector; also, see [0021] “…to determine touch locations of consecutive taps. If the latter tap is within a threshold area of the former tap the action performed in response to the former tap may be repeated”), b) carrying out a verification step by the microprocessor by