DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response filed 7 July 2025 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17 and 23-24 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 11 and 17 are currently amended; claims 4-6, 8-9, 14-15 and 23 are previously presented; claims 2-3, 7, 10, 12-13, 16, and 18-22 are cancelled; and claim 24 is newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the shape indexer" in lines 29-30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “computing, by the processor, a series of predictions indicating a probability of the component belonging to one or more categories based on each type of information associated with the component using one or more artificial intelligence models, the one or more artificial intelligence models including a shape indexer; computing, by the processor, a probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories based on the series of predictions; and classifying, by the processor, the component in at least one category of the one or more categories based on the computed probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories; wherein computing the series of predictions indicating that the component belongs to the one or more categories comprises predicting a probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories based on the shape data associated with the component using the shape indexer” which indicates combination of mental processes and mathematical calculation. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, the claim 1 recites “computing a series of predictions, by the processor, indicating a probability of the component belonging to one or more categories based on each type of information associated with the component using one or more artificial intelligence models; computing, by the processor, a probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories based on the series of predictions; and classifying, by the processor, the component in at least one category of the one or more categories based on the computed probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories”, which is merely just a concepts can be performed in the human mind using mathematical calculation. The claim recites computing a series of predictions using one or more artificial intelligence models, the human mind can through observation predict the shape and other specifications of a particular component as being that of a bolt, and determine through evaluation a probability that the component belongs to a bolt category as overall probability of the fastener bolt with the highest probability value as described in the specification [Para. 53]. The claim further recites “the one or more artificial intelligence models including a shape indexer”. Merely using artificial intelligence models do not preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, all of the limitations can be performed mentally. Claim1 further includes additional element “a processor” which is a generic computer component. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. However, the inclusion of generic computer components being used to implement the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is related to classifying the component in at least one category of the one or more categories based on the computed probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories which can be merely performed using mental process and is not directed to any particular practical application. See MPEP 2016.05(h), MPEP 2106.05(b).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim includes additional steps, “obtaining, by the processor, one or more data files comprising information associated with at least one component to be classified in a PDM database, wherein each data file of the one or more data files comprises different types of information associated with a component of the at least one component, the different types of information including metadata and shape data associated with the component, the shape data associated with the component including a three-dimensional image of the component; displaying, by a display, the at least one category associated with the classified component on a graphical user interface; storing the metadata associated with the component in the PDM database; receiving a query to retrieve one or more components in a specified category from the PDM database; retrieving information associated with at least one component corresponding to the specified category based on metadata associated with the specified category; and displaying the information associated with the at least one component corresponding to the specified category on the display, wherein the metadata comprises information associated with the at least one category corresponding to the component and a unique identifier associated with the component, and wherein a data file of the one or more data files is a computer-aided design file associated with the component”, where obtaining, receiving, retrieving steps are mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely storing and displaying data are also insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. As such, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. See MPEP 2016.05(h).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Furthermore, the claim recites “obtaining, receiving, computing, classifying and displaying steps” which indicates data gathering, analyzing and displaying. The courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. The claims also recite storing and retrieving steps which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, claim 1 is ineligible.
As such, the independent claims 11 and 17 are also directed to the abstract idea for the same reason as the claim 1 above. Further, the memory unit and processing units are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, claim further describes “the one or more data files comprise text data associated with the component, image data associated with the component, or a combination thereof” which indicates mere data gathering activity and as such the claims limitations are insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claim merely further describes the abstract idea without adding significantly more or applying the abstract idea to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, claim recites “computing the series of predictions indicating that the component belongs to the one or more categories comprises: predicting a probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories based on the text data associated with the component using the text classifier” which represents merely combination of mental process and mathematical calculation that fall into the “mental process” and “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus just further describes the abstract idea without adding significantly more or applying the abstract idea to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, claim recites “computing the series of predictions indicating that the component belongs to the one or more categories comprises: predicting a probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories based on the image data associated with the component using the image classifier” which represents merely combination of mental process and mathematical calculation that fall into the “mental process” and “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus just further describes the abstract idea without adding significantly more or applying the abstract idea to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, claims recite “computing the overall probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories based on the series of predictions comprises: computing an overall probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories based on the series of predictions using a closed-loop weighted model” which represents merely combination of mental process and mathematical calculation that fall into the “mental process” and “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims thus just further describe the abstract idea without adding significantly more or applying the abstract idea to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, claims recite “classifying the component in the PDM database based on the computed probability of the component belonging to the one or more categories comprises: identifying a category of the one or more categories with a highest probability from the one or more categories to which the component belongs to; and classifying the component as belonging to the identified category in the PDM database” which represents merely combination of mental process and mathematical calculation that fall into the “mental process” and “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims thus just further describe the abstract idea without adding significantly more or applying the abstract idea to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 23, claim further describes “wherein the stored metadata associated with the component further comprises an owner of the component, a vendor of the component, a project associated with the component, or any combination thereof” which indicates mere data gathering activity and as such the claims limitations are insignificant extra solution activity which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claim merely further describes the abstract idea without adding significantly more or applying the abstract idea to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 24, claim further describes “wherein the one or more artificial intelligence models further include a text classifier, an image classifier, or the text classifier and the image classifier” which further indicates mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claim merely further describes the abstract idea without adding significantly more or applying the abstract idea to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant arguments regarding the 101 rejections, “Applicants amended independent claims 1, 11, and 17 to further tie the claims to real world applications and thus obviate the claim rejections. Therefore, Applicants respectfully request the claim rejections be withdrawn”. However, examiner respectfully responds that the additional elements further indicate mere data gathering activity and mental process. Mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. Furthermore, the claims recite the elements “obtaining, computing, classifying and displaying steps” which indicates data gathering, analyzing and displaying. The courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Thus, the claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17 and 23-24 are directed to the abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections 103, filed on July 07, 2025, see pages 11-15, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17 and 23-24 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SOLAIMAN BHUYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Beausoliel can be reached on 571-272-3645. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD S BHUYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2167
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167