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 applicant’s arguments filed on 12/04/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, 15, and 16 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim objections:
The objection has been withdrawn in view of the arguments.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks, page 15-16, regarding Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, Examiner notes that 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.
Firstly, the limitations recited on page 15 as providing technical improvement amount to additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer; data gathering activities; and insignificant extra-solution activities which do not add meaningful limitation to the recited judicial exceptions. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, even when considered as a whole.
Secondly, the remarks alleges that the improvement lies in facilitating managing, tracking, meeting stakeholder expectations, and efficient reviewing of relevant data. These amount to mental processes. For example, these cover a person making a mental evaluation and judgment on the data. Improvement cannot be in the abstract idea itself.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter. Therefore, all arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, which is a process, falling under a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “assigning a reference data object identifier to the reference data object” 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 reference data object and the identifier and mentally making a judgment about an appropriate assignment.
The limitation “modifying the reference data object to include the node identifier” 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 adding an identifier such as a number as an additional information in a existing set of information mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“at a computing system comprising a processor and memory”
“storing the reference data object in a database”
“in response to receiving a selection of the expectation item, storing a link to the expectation item in the requirement data object”
“storing the received requirement content in the requirement data object”
These additional elements, however, 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. A processor and a memory are generic computer components. Storing data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“obtaining an aircraft expectation document file containing immutable expectation content”
“defining a reference data object, comprising: receiving a designation of a location within the aircraft expectation document file, the location corresponding to a selected immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document file”
“receiving information defining an expectation item associated with the selected immutable expectation content, the information defining the expectation item corresponding to at least a description of the expectation item”
“allocating the reference data object to a node of an allocation tree data structure, comprising: obtaining a node identifier of the node of the allocation tree data structure, the node defining an operational objective of an aircraft, the operational objective of the aircraft including at least one of a required component of the aircraft, a required structure of the aircraft, a required function of a component of the aircraft, and a required function of the aircraft”
“receiving a selection of the node of the allocation tree data structure”
“receiving a selection of the expectation item from the list of candidate expectation items”
“receiving a requirement content”
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are data gathering activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“generating a requirement data object defining an engineering requirement for a portion of the aircraft, comprising: causing display of a requirement data object generation user interface on a client device”
“in response to receiving the selection of the node, causing display of a list of candidate expectation items from reference data objects associated with the node, wherein each candidate expectation item of the list of candidate expectation items includes an indication of whether the respective candidate expectation item is linked to a respective requirement data object”
“in response to receiving a request to view the requirement data object: causing display of the requirement content”
“causing display of the link to the expectation item, the link selectable to cause display of the reference data object that includes the expectation item”
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activities. Specifically, they are post-solution activities of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 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.
The additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements that amount to data gathering activities fall under receiving or transmitting data over a network, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional elements that amount to insignificant-extra solution activities of merely displaying a result fall under presenting offers and gathering statistics, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 2:
The limitations “the reference data object is a reference data object of a plurality of reference data objects” and “each respective reference data object of the plurality of reference data objects is associated with respective immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document file” merely further limit the reference data object recited in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
The limitation “in response to receiving the audit request, analyzing the plurality of reference data objects to identify reference data objects that are not associated with any requirement data objects” 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. For example, analyzing and identifying reference data objects covers a person mentally observing the reference data objects and making judgments.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“receiving an audit request configured to evaluate compliance with at least the aircraft expectation document file”
“causing display of an audit graphical user interface, the audit graphical user interface including a graphical output identifying the reference data objects that are not associated with any requirement data objects”
The additional element “receiving an audit request configured to evaluate compliance with at least the aircraft expectation document file” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “causing display of an audit graphical user interface, the audit graphical user interface including a graphical output identifying the reference data objects that are not associated with any requirement data objects” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this is a post-solution activity of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 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.
The additional element that amounts to a data gathering activity falls under receiving or transmitting data over a network, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional element that amounts to an insignificant-extra solution activity of merely displaying a result falls under presenting offers and gathering statistics, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“in response to receiving the selection of the expectation item, storing a link to the requirement data object in the reference data object”
This additional element 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. Storing data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 element amounts 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).
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 “the reference data object comprises: the expectation item; and the reference data object identifier” merely further limits the reference data object recited in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
The limitation “allocating the reference data object to the node of the allocation tree data structure comprises associating the node identifier with the expectation item” 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. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the node identifier and the expectation item and associating them mentally or with a pen and paper.
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.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5: claim 5 merely further limits the reference data object recited in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
Regarding claim 6:
The limitation “assigning an expectation item identifier to the expectation item” 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. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the expectation item identifier and the expectation item and assigning the expectation item identifier to the expectation item mentally or with a pen and paper.
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.
Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 7:
The limitation “the expectation item is a first expectation item” merely further limits the expectation item recited in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
The limitation “the location of the selected immutable expectation content is a first location of first selected immutable expectation content” merely further limits the location recited in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“defining the reference data object further comprises: receiving a designation of a second location within the aircraft expectation document file, the second location corresponding to second selected immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document file”
“receiving information defining a second expectation item associated with the second selected immutable expectation content”
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are data gathering activities. See MPEP 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.
The additional elements amount to data gathering activities that fall under receiving or transmitting data over a network. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). 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 limitations “the reference data object is a reference data object of a plurality of reference data objects” and “each respective reference data object of the plurality of reference data objects is associated with respective immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document file” merely further limit the reference data object recited in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
The limitation “the requirement data object is a requirement data object of a plurality of requirement data objects” merely further limit the requirement data object recited in claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
The limitation “identifying a set of requirement data objects affected by the change in the expectation content” 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. For example, this covers someone mentally observing the set of requirement data objects and mentally making a judgment about which requirement data objects are affected.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“receiving an indication that expectation content of the selected immutable expectation content associated with the reference data object has changed”
“graphically indicating, to a user, the set of requirement data objects that are affected by the change in the expectation content”
The additional element “receiving an indication that expectation content of the selected immutable expectation content associated with the reference data object has changed” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “graphically indicating, to a user, the set of requirement data objects that are affected by the change in the expectation content” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this is a post-solution activity of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 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.
The additional element that amounts to a data gathering activity falls under receiving or transmitting data over a network, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional element that amounts to an insignificant-extra solution activity of merely displaying a result falls under presenting offers and gathering statistics, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 9:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “capturing data corresponding to the selected region of the document image” 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 selected region of the document image.
The limitation “in response to a user selection of a node of the allocation tree data structure, generating a reference data object that includes an identifier of the selected node and the data corresponding to the selected region of the document image” 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 selected node and creating a reference data object accordingly either mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “in response to receiving a requirement data object generation request, generating a requirement data object, the requirement data object comprising an engineering requirement for a portion of the aircraft and a link to the reference data object” 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 creating a requirement data object to include information about engineering requirement and a link either mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“at a computing system comprising a processor and memory”
These additional elements, however, 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. A processor and a memory are generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“receiving a user input identifying a selected region of the document image”
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are data gathering activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“causing display of a first graphical user interface including a document image of an aircraft expectation document”
“causing an allocation tree data structure to be displayed in the first graphical user interface, the allocation tree data structure defining a plurality of nodes, respective nodes of the plurality of nodes corresponding to respective operational objectives of an aircraft, each respective operational objective of the aircraft including at least one of a respective required component of the aircraft, a respective required structure of the aircraft, a respective required function of a component of the aircraft, and a respective required function of the aircraft”
“causing display of the requirement data object in a second graphical user interface, the requirement data object including the link to the reference data object”
“in response to receiving a selection of the link to the reference data object, causing at least one of the reference data object or the selected region of the document image to be displayed to a user”
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activities. Specifically, they are post-solution activities of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 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.
The additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements that amount to data gathering activities fall under receiving or transmitting data over a network, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional elements that amount to insignificant-extra solution activities of merely displaying a result fall under presenting offers and gathering statistics, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 10: claim 10 merely further limits the reference data object and the link recited in claim 9. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 9 is applicable.
Regarding claim 11: claim 11 merely further limits the expectation item, the reference data object, the requirement data object, and the link recited in claims 9 and 10 and a second requirement data object. Therefore, the same analysis as claims 9 and 10 is applicable.
Regarding claim 12:
The limitation “including the link to the reference data object in the requirement data object in response to the user selecting the reference data object for inclusion in the requirement data object” 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. For example, this covers a person including information about a link to the reference data object mentally or with a pen and paper.
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.
Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 13:
The limitation “in response to detecting the user selection of the reference data object for inclusion in the requirement data object, modifying the reference data object to include a link to the requirement data object” 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. For example, modifying the reference data object covers someone changing the information contained in the reference data object mentally or with a pen and paper.
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.
Therefore, claim 13 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 14: claim 14 merely further limits the data recited in claim 9. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 9 is applicable.
Regarding claim 15:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “in response to receiving the selection of the node and the information defining the expectation item, generating a reference data object including an identifier of the selected node and the information defining the expectation item” 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 selected node and creating a reference data object accordingly either mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “in response to receiving the selection of the identifier associated with the expectation item, generate a link to the reference data object that includes the expectation item” 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 someone including information about a link in the reference data object mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “generating a requirement data object including the engineering requirement and the link to the reference data object that includes the expectation item” 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 creating a requirement data object and include information about engineering requirement and a link either mentally or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“at a computing system comprising a processor and memory”
These additional elements, however, 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. A processor and a memory are generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“receiving, via the document portion capture control, a user selection of a region of the displayed document image, the region including immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document”
“receiving a selection of a node in the allocation tree data structure”
“receiving information defining an expectation item associated with the immutable expectation content, the information defining the expectation item corresponding to at least a description of the expectation item”
“receiving, in the description field, an engineering requirement for a portion of the aircraft”
“receiving, via the reference data object linking control, a selection of an identifier associated with the expectation item”
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are data gathering activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“causing display of a reference data object user interface, the reference data object user interface including a document image of an aircraft expectation document and a document portion capture control”
“causing display of a node selection user interface including an allocation tree data structure defining a plurality of nodes, respective nodes of the plurality of nodes corresponding to respective operational objectives of an aircraft, each respective operational objective of the aircraft including at least one of a respective required component of the aircraft, a respective required structure of the aircraft, a respective required function of a component of the aircraft, and a respective required function of the aircraft”
“causing display of a requirement data object user interface including a description field and a reference data object linking control”
“causing display of the requirement data object, including causing display of the engineering requirement for the portion of the aircraft and the link to the reference data object”
“wherein selection of the link is configured to cause display of at least one of the reference data object or the user selected region of the displayed document image”
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are insignificant extra-solution activities. Specifically, they are post-solution activities of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 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.
The additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements that amount to data gathering activities fall under receiving or transmitting data over a network, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional elements that amount to insignificant-extra solution activities of merely displaying a result fall under presenting offers and gathering statistics, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 16:
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“wherein the reference data object linking control displays a list of candidate expectation items including the expectation item, wherein each candidate expectation item of the list of candidate expectation items includes an indication of whether the respective candidate expectation item is linked to a respective requirement data object”
This additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, this is a post-solution activity of merely displaying a result on an interface. See MPEP 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.
The additional element amounts to an insignificant-extra solution activity that falls under presenting offers and gathering statistics. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claim 16 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 17:
The limitation “the selection of the node is a first selection of the node during a reference data object generation operation” merely further limits the selection of the node recited in claim 15. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 15 is applicable.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“receiving a second selection of the node during a requirement data object generation operation”
This additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 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.
The additional element amounts to a data gathering activity that falls under receiving or transmitting data over a network. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 17 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 18:
The limitation “wherein the list of candidate expectation items displayed in the reference data object linking control are selected from reference data objects associated with the selected node of the allocation tree data structure” 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. For example, this covers to a person mentally observing the reference data objects associated with the selected node and mentally selecting candidate expectation items to be displayed.
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.
Therefore, claim 18 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 19:
The limitation “in response to receiving the second selection of the node during the requirement data object generation operation, prepopulating the requirement data object with information from the selected node” 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. For example, this covers a person including the information from the selected node in the requirement data object mentally or with a pen and paper.
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.
Therefore, claim 19 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 20:
The limitation “in response to receiving the second selection of the node during the requirement data object generation operation, prepopulating the requirement data object with information from a reference data object associated with the selected node” 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. For example, this covers a person including the information from the reference data object in the requirement data object mentally or with a pen and paper.
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.
Therefore, claim 20 is not eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al. (US20200380079A1), hereinafter Sanders, in view of Harada (JP2011076561A).
Regarding claim 1, Sanders discloses
at a computing system comprising a processor and memory ([0057]: “FIG. 10 is an exemplary hardware and software environment 1000 (referred to as a computer-implemented system and/or computer-implemented method) used to implement one or more embodiments of the invention. … The computer 1002 comprises a hardware processor 1004A and/or a special purpose (hardware) processor 1004B (hereinafter alternatively collectively referred to as processor 1004) and a memory 1006, such as random access memory (RAM).”):
obtaining an aircraft expectation document file containing immutable expectation content ([0004]: “In aerospace and/or mechanical engineering, hundreds if not thousands of requirements may apply to different parts with respect to their design, location, etc. Compliance with such requirements is mandatory in order to properly design an airplane, a part/system within an airplane, or other mechanical part (e.g., an engine). … Likewise high-level requirements may be decomposed into one or more sub-requirements that are specified in a text based document that are provided to a detail designer. … In other words, the engineer takes the text based requirements documents and plans, and builds a detailed part in a solid/CAD modeling application.”) ([0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400.”);
defining a reference data object ([0037]: “At step 302, one or more structured requirements objects are created for a component.”) ([0038]: “In view of the above, step 302 provides for the creation/organization/standardization of structured requirements objects for a particular program.”), comprising:
receiving a designation of a location within the aircraft expectation document file, the location corresponding to selected immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document file ([0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”);
receiving information defining an expectation item associated with the selected immutable expectation content, the information defining the expectation item corresponding to at least a description of the expectation item ([0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”); and
…
storing the reference data object in a database ([0038]: “Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”);
allocating the reference data object to a node of an allocation tree data structure ([0039]: “In one or more embodiments, such structured requirements objects 400 are organized into an RFLP (requirements functional logical physical) tree (e.g., a hierarchically organized tree). For example, the RFLP tree may include a system (i.e., high level system) that contains logical collections of requirements, components, logical volumes, and physical components. As described above, the structured requirements objects may include functional and logical requirements for components.”) ([0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … A textual hierarchical based list of the components of the fuselage are illustrated in component tree 502. A view of a logical system volume 504 is illustrated within system view 506. The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons)”), comprising:
…
the node defining an operational objective of an aircraft, the operational objective of the aircraft including at least one of a required component of the aircraft, a required structure of the aircraft, a required function of a component of the aircraft, and a required function of the aircraft ([0009]: “One or more logical system volumes are created in a component system using a computer-aided design (CAD) program. Each of the logical system volumes is an abstract geometric three-dimensional volume in a virtual context of the part to be physically produced.”) ([0013]: “Each of the logical system volumes may consist of a skeleton. Some examples of skeletons are primary structure wireframe grids, movable mechanism representations, relational layout models (RLMs/Boeing), interface control models (ICMs/Boeing), and master datum files (MDFs/Boeing).”) ([0014]: “As used herein, the term “skeleton” describes an abstract geometric representation of the resulting physical product. This abstraction is insufficient to produce the physical product but is sufficient to describe the unique physical features/components of the physical product.”);
…
receiving a selection of the node of the allocation tree data structure ([0043]: “upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”);
in response to receiving the selection of the node, causing display of a list of candidate expectation items from reference data objects associated with the node, wherein each candidate expectation item of the list of candidate expectation items includes an indication of whether the respective candidate expectation item is linked to a respective requirement data object ([0024]: “FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention”) ([0043]: “FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”) ([0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400.”);
…
receiving requirement content ([0010]: “Further to the above, one or more specification objects may be created for a component. The specification objects consist of instructions regarding how to comply with each of the structured requirements objects. In addition, the specification objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes.”);
….
Sanders does not explicitly teach
assigning a reference data object identifier to the reference data object;
obtaining a node identifier of the node of the allocation tree data structure;
modifying the reference data object to include the node identifier;
generating a requirement data object defining an engineering requirement for a portion of the aircraft, comprising: causing display of a requirement data object generation user interface on a client device;
receiving a selection of the expectation item from the list of candidate expectation items;
in response to receiving a selection of the expectation item, storing a link to the expectation item in the requirement data object;
storing the received requirement content in the requirement data object; and
in response to receiving a request to view the requirement data object: causing display of the requirement content; and causing display of the link to the expectation item, the link selectable to cause display of the reference data object that includes the expectation item.
However, Harada teaches a catalog creation system for creating a catalog containing information relevant to a design part using an appropriate interface ([0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) ([0053]-[0055]:“A GUI 1100 shown in FIG. 11 displays a field 1102 for specifying a project name used to identify the work of creating a parts catalog and an output destination for outputting parts catalog data. … When the operator performs a predetermined input on the GUI 1100 and then generates a mouse event for the "OK" button, the parts catalog creation process is started as a new project.”) ([0057]: “the parts catalog generation unit 236 obtains a set of part IDs, associated data IDs, and link destination information from the final work data management unit 224, and creates the parts catalog.”) ([0029]: “The parts catalog generation unit 236 creates parts catalog data 238 that defines links between images based on data IDs linked to part IDs in accordance with the correspondence input by the operator or user to the parts catalog creation support device 100, and images referenced by the part IDs, records the data on an appropriate recording medium, and makes the parts catalog data 238 available for use. The format of the parts catalog data 238 is not particularly limited, but considering versatility and device independence, it is preferable to create it as a structured document such as XML.”) ([0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”), wherein the catalog creation performed by assigning identification values (IDs) to each of the data related to parts in a design ([0004]: “The parts list for production includes part identification values (hereinafter referred to as part IDs) such as part names assigned to the parts.) is assigned to each part”) ([0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data”); searching/selecting data related to a part and matching it with the corresponding part ([0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) ([0042]: “In step S703, a command from the operator is received and the automatic linking section is started to perform a text search and a hierarchical structure check between the part ID and the data ID, thereby executing an automatic link.”) ([0050]: “when the operator selects "Set Link" from extended menu 924, the link destination of the part ID is rewritten to the link destination of data ID 922 selected on display unit 920, making it possible to match the link destinations of the part ID and data ID.”); creating and storing a link and information relevant to the part in the catalog ([0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) ([0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”) ([0027]: “The parts catalog creation support device 100 further includes a work data management unit 224. The work data management unit 224 reads out the work file 206 stored on the recording medium via an appropriate interface … The service parts list/parts list 202, CAD data 204, and work file 206 shown in FIG. 2 may be stored in local storage, or if the recording medium is managed by a secure server, they can be accessed using appropriate secure communications.”); and then generating and displaying the catalog containing the stored information and link ([0010]: “If the matching is successful, the parts catalog creation support device displays a graphical user interface (hereinafter referred to as GUI) that shows the association state.”) ([0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”) ([0036]: “Furthermore, in order to make it easier for the operator to check the association state, the display units 510 and 520 display the part IDs and data IDs in a hierarchical manner so that the hierarchical structure of the machine elements can be visually recognized. In addition, in the hierarchical display, icon images 512 and 522 indicating the link state are displayed in a display format corresponding to the matching state.”).
Sanders and Harada are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating and organizing data relevant to parts/components of a design.
Examiner notes that Sanders discloses retrieving a structured requirements object using identifiers (IDs) ([0053]: “At step 810, unique identifiers (IDs) for the retrieved additional structured requirements objects are retrieved.”), but does not disclose explicitly assigning such an identifier. However, Harada teaches explicitly assigning an identifier to a data object and using it to retrieve/search for the object as explained above. In addition, Sanders discloses linking requirements, structured requirements objects, and specification data objects with corresponding parts, but does not explicitly disclose selecting a specific set of data for generating a requirement data object. However, Harada teaches generating a catalog object for a part, by querying and selecting specific data related to the part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Harada’s teaching for assigning identifiers to data objects to retrieve the data and creating a catalog object for a part into Sanders to assign identifiers to the nodes of the allocation tree data structure and the structured requirements objects, and retrieve/select/store such data objects for use in creating a data object.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the requirement data object amounts to a data object (collection of data) storing information related to a part/component such as the requirement content and link to a reference data object. Therefore, Harada’s teaching for creating the parts catalog and the interface for creating the parts catalog teaches creating such data objects that stores data related to the part and links to relevant data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such Harada’s teaching into Sanders to select a set of data related to a part of a design, and create a data object that contains the set of data and relevant links to data through a data object generation interface.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so allows organizing data thereby allowing an easier retrieval of a desired data object and any data associated with the data object, which improves the usability and searchability of data (Harada, [0005]: “If the image reference structure disappears, efficient processing utilizing visual effects may become difficult even when using a parts catalog creation system for efficient part searches using an information processing device such as a computer. Therefore, in order to improve the search efficiency of the parts catalog creation system and the efficiency of matching between parts, it is preferable to improve the coincidence between the part IDs in the parts list and the data IDs of the three-dimensional model data and to standardize the image reference structure. To achieve this, modifying the configuration set of the 3D model data so that the 3D CAD data corresponds to the parts list imposes a large burden on the worker, and since most of the utilization of the 3D CAD data is completed by the end of the design process, it is also a duplicate effort and is inefficient from the standpoint of data redundancy.”) (Harada, [0061]: “The parts catalog generating unit 236 generates the parts catalog shown in FIG. 13, thereby improving the usability and searchability of the parts catalog.”).
Therefore, the combination of Sanders and Harada teaches
assigning a reference data object identifier to the reference data object (Sanders, [0037]: “At step 302, one or more structured requirements objects are created for a component.”) (Harada, [0004]: “The parts list for production includes part identification values (hereinafter referred to as part IDs) such as part names assigned to the parts.) is assigned to each part”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data”);
obtaining a node identifier of the node of the allocation tree data structure (Sanders, [0039]: “In one or more embodiments, such structured requirements objects 400 are organized into an RFLP (requirements functional logical physical) tree (e.g., a hierarchically organized tree). For example, the RFLP tree may include a system (i.e., high level system) that contains logical collections of requirements, components, logical volumes, and physical components. As described above, the structured requirements objects may include functional and logical requirements for components.”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data”) (Harada, [0057]: “the parts catalog generation unit 236 obtains a set of part IDs, associated data IDs, and link destination information from the final work data management unit 224, and creates the parts catalog.”);
modifying the reference data object to include the node identifier (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0057]: “the parts catalog generation unit 236 obtains a set of part IDs, associated data IDs, and link destination information from the final work data management unit 224, and creates the parts catalog.”);
generating a requirement data object defining an engineering requirement for a portion of the aircraft, comprising: causing display of a requirement data object generation user interface on a client device (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0053]-[0055]:“A GUI 1100 shown in FIG. 11 displays a field 1102 for specifying a project name used to identify the work of creating a parts catalog and an output destination for outputting parts catalog data. … When the operator performs a predetermined input on the GUI 1100 and then generates a mouse event for the "OK" button, the parts catalog creation process is started as a new project.”) (Harada, [0057]: “the parts catalog generation unit 236 obtains a set of part IDs, associated data IDs, and link destination information from the final work data management unit 224, and creates the parts catalog.”);
receiving a selection of the expectation item from the list of candidate expectation items (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”) (Sanders, Fig. 4 shows the list of requirements stored in the structured requirements objects) (Harada, [0014]: “11 is a diagram showing an embodiment of a GUI 1100 of a data acquisition wizard displayed by the parts catalog creation support device 100 of the present embodiment for selecting a parts list and three-dimensional CAD data for creating a parts catalog.”) (Harada, [0042]: “In step S703, a command from the operator is received and the automatic linking section is started to perform a text search and a hierarchical structure check between the part ID and the data ID, thereby executing an automatic link.”) (Harada, [0050]: “In the state shown in FIG. 9, part ID 912 and data ID 922 are associated with each other, and when the operator selects "Set Link" from extended menu 924, the link destination of the part ID is rewritten to the link destination of data ID 922 selected on display unit 920, making it possible to match the link destinations of the part ID and data ID.”);
in response to receiving a selection of the expectation item, storing a link to the expectation item in the requirement data object (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”) (Harada, [0014]: “8 is a diagram showing an embodiment of a GUI 800 displayed by the parts catalog creation support device 100 at the processing stage when the automatic linking process performed by the automatic linking unit 212 in this embodiment is completed.”);
storing the received requirement content in the requirement data object (Sanders, [0010]: “Further to the above, one or more specification objects may be created for a component. The specification objects consist of instructions regarding how to comply with each of the structured requirements objects. In addition, the specification objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes.”) (Harada, [0057]: “the parts catalog generation unit 236 obtains a set of part IDs, associated data IDs, and link destination information from the final work data management unit 224, and creates the parts catalog.”) (Harada, [0027]: “The parts catalog creation support device 100 further includes a work data management unit 224. The work data management unit 224 reads out the work file 206 stored on the recording medium via an appropriate interface … The service parts list/parts list 202, CAD data 204, and work file 206 shown in FIG. 2 may be stored in local storage, or if the recording medium is managed by a secure server, they can be accessed using appropriate secure communications.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”); and
in response to receiving a request to view the requirement data object: causing display of the requirement content; and causing display of the link to the expectation item, the link selectable to cause display of the reference data object that includes the expectation item (Sanders, [0010]: “Further to the above, one or more specification objects may be created for a component. The specification objects consist of instructions regarding how to comply with each of the structured requirements objects. In addition, the specification objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”) (Harada, [0010]: “If the matching is successful, the parts catalog creation support device displays a graphical user interface (hereinafter referred to as GUI) that shows the association state.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”) (Harada, [0036]: “Furthermore, in order to make it easier for the operator to check the association state, the display units 510 and 520 display the part IDs and data IDs in a hierarchical manner so that the hierarchical structure of the machine elements can be visually recognized. In addition, in the hierarchical display, icon images 512 and 522 indicating the link state are displayed in a display format corresponding to the matching state.”).
Regarding claim 2, Sanders discloses
the reference data object is a reference data object of a plurality of reference data objects (Sanders, [0009]: “One or more structured requirements objects are created for a component. Each of the structured requirements objects consist of a mandatory functional or logical characteristic of the component.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”);
each respective reference data object of the plurality of reference data objects is associated with respective immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document file (Sanders, [0004]: “In aerospace and/or mechanical engineering, hundreds if not thousands of requirements may apply to different parts with respect to their design, location, etc. Compliance with such requirements is mandatory in order to properly design an airplane, a part/system within an airplane, or other mechanical part (e.g., an engine). … Likewise high-level requirements may be decomposed into one or more sub-requirements that are specified in a text based document that are provided to a detail designer. … In other words, the engineer takes the text based requirements documents and plans, and builds a detailed part in a solid/CAD modeling application.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”); and
the method further comprises: receiving an audit request configured to evaluate compliance with at least the aircraft expectation document file (Sanders, [0033]: “FIG. 1 illustrates problems encountered by an engineer/designer (e.g., a user that performs simulation/analysis/validation/verification activities) for a large scale program such as an aircraft.”) (Sanders, [0004]: “Similarly an engineer may perform analysis and simulation to verify the design meets the identified requirements.”).
Sanders does not explicitly disclose
in response to receiving the audit request, analyzing the plurality of reference data objects to identify reference data objects that are not associated with any requirement data objects; and
causing display of an audit graphical user interface, the audit graphical user interface including a graphical output identifying the reference data objects that are not associated with any requirement data objects.
However, Harada teaches determining whether or not the part data has been linked with a part or not and displaying the unlinked state to a user ([0011]: “On the other hand, for a part ID for which matching has not been completed, an image showing that matching has not been completed is displayed in association with the part ID and data ID.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Harada’s teaching for determining and displaying a reference data object that has not been associated with a requirement data object into Sanders to analyze the requirement data objects to identify requirement data objects that are not associated with any requirement data objects and display the result to the user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would allow the user to associate any unassociated reference data objects with a requirement data object thereby organizing and linking the two objects which improves the usability and searchability of the data (Harada, [0033]: “If matching between the part ID and the data ID fails, the automatic linking unit 212 displays an icon image indicating that matching has not been achieved on each display unit, thereby assisting the operator in manual matching.”) (Harada, [0061]: “The parts catalog generating unit 236 generates the parts catalog shown in FIG. 13, thereby improving the usability and searchability of the parts catalog.”).
Therefore, the combination of Sanders and Harada teaches
in response to receiving the audit request, analyzing the plurality of reference data objects to identify reference data objects that are not associated with any requirement data objects (Sanders, [0033]: “FIG. 1 illustrates problems encountered by an engineer/designer (e.g., a user that performs simulation/analysis/validation/verification activities) for a large scale program such as an aircraft.”) (Sanders, [0004]: “Similarly an engineer may perform analysis and simulation to verify the design meets the identified requirements.”) (Harada, [0011]: “On the other hand, for a part ID for which matching has not been completed, an image showing that matching has not been completed is displayed in association with the part ID and data ID.”);
causing display of an audit graphical user interface, the audit graphical user interface including a graphical output identifying the reference data objects that are not associated with any requirement data objects (Sanders, [0033]: “FIG. 1 illustrates problems encountered by an engineer/designer (e.g., a user that performs simulation/analysis/validation/verification activities) for a large scale program such as an aircraft.”) (Sanders, [0004]: “Similarly an engineer may perform analysis and simulation to verify the design meets the identified requirements.”) (Harada, [0011]: “On the other hand, for a part ID for which matching has not been completed, an image showing that matching has not been completed is displayed in association with the part ID and data ID.”).
Regarding claim 3, Sanders/Harada teaches
in response to receiving the selection of the expectation item, storing a link to the requirement data object in the reference data object (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 4, Sanders/Harada teaches
the reference data object comprises: the expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”); and
the reference data object identifier (Sanders, [0053]: “At step 810, unique identifiers (IDs) for the retrieved additional structured requirements objects are retrieved.”) (Harada, [0004]: “The parts list for production includes part identification values (hereinafter referred to as part IDs) such as part names assigned to the parts.) is assigned to each part”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data”); and
allocating the reference data object to the node of the allocation tree data structure comprises associating the node identifier with the expectation item (Sanders, [0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … A textual hierarchical based list of the components of the fuselage are illustrated in component tree 502. A view of a logical system volume 504 is illustrated within system view 506. The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons)”) (Sanders, [0053]: “At step 808, the additional structured requirements objects linked to the collected additional logical system volumes are retrieved. At step 810, unique identifiers (IDs) for the retrieved additional structured requirements objects are retrieved.”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 5, Sanders/Harada teaches
wherein the reference data object further comprises at least one of: information corresponding to the location of the selected immutable expectation content; or an image corresponding to a portion of the aircraft expectation document file identified by the location of the selected immutable expectation content (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”).
Regarding claim 6, Sanders/Harada teaches
assigning an expectation item identifier to the expectation item (Sanders, [0037]: “At step 302, one or more structured requirements objects are created for a component.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0004]: “The parts list for production includes part identification values (hereinafter referred to as part IDs) such as part names assigned to the parts.) is assigned to each part”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 7, Sanders/Harada teaches
the expectation item is a first expectation item; the location of the selected immutable expectation content is a first location of first selected immutable expectation content (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”); and
defining the reference data object further comprises: receiving a designation of a second location within the aircraft expectation document file, the second location corresponding to second selected immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document file (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Sanders, [0037]: “At step 302, one or more structured requirements objects are created for a component.”); and
receiving information defining a second expectation item associated with the second selected immutable expectation content (Sanders, [0037]: “At step 302, one or more structured requirements objects are created for a component.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”).
Regarding claim 8, Sanders/Harada teaches
the reference data object is a reference data object of a plurality of reference data objects (Sanders, [0009]: “One or more structured requirements objects are created for a component. Each of the structured requirements objects consist of a mandatory functional or logical characteristic of the component.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”);
each respective reference data object of the plurality of reference data objects is associated with respective immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document file (Sanders, [0004]: “In aerospace and/or mechanical engineering, hundreds if not thousands of requirements may apply to different parts with respect to their design, location, etc. Compliance with such requirements is mandatory in order to properly design an airplane, a part/system within an airplane, or other mechanical part (e.g., an engine). … Likewise high-level requirements may be decomposed into one or more sub-requirements that are specified in a text based document that are provided to a detail designer. … In other words, the engineer takes the text based requirements documents and plans, and builds a detailed part in a solid/CAD modeling application.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”);
the requirement data object is a requirement data object of a plurality of requirement data objects (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) ([0053]-[0055]:“A GUI 1100 shown in FIG. 11 displays a field 1102 for specifying a project name used to identify the work of creating a parts catalog and an output destination for outputting parts catalog data. … When the operator performs a predetermined input on the GUI 1100 and then generates a mouse event for the "OK" button, the parts catalog creation process is started as a new project.”); and
the method further comprises: receiving an indication that expectation content of the selected immutable expectation content associated with the reference data object has changed (Sanders, [0052]: “The preliminary design (e.g., low details) 702 for a new product is created/received”) (Sanders, [0048]: “Thus, once steps 310-312 determine which requirements apply to the new part being designed, the detailed design for that part can be conducted.”);
identifying a set of requirement data objects affected by the change in the expectation content (Sanders, [0004]: “Similarly an engineer may perform analysis and simulation to verify the design meets the identified requirements.”) (Sanders, [0053]: “In particular, the comparison tool 704 first retrieves additional structured requirements objects (also referred to as product specifications) for the new product preliminary design 702 from the product logical system database 706. … FIG. 8 illustrates the steps for retrieving the additional structured requirements objects for the new product preliminary design in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention.”) (Sanders, [0056]: “At step 712, the user evaluates the ideal new product 710.”) and
graphically indicating, to a user, the set of requirement data objects that are affected by the change in the expectation content (Sanders, [0056]: “At step 712, the user evaluates the ideal new product 710. If the ideal new product 710 meets the requirements/specifications, the ideal new product 710 is produced/output as the final product 714. However, if the ideal new product 710 does not meet the requirements/specifications, the user improves the additional structured requirements objects (used for the new product preliminary design 702) at step 716 and stores them in the product logical system database 706. In this manner, the structured requirements objects for new products are refined and improved over time based on a comparison between the new products with other established products.”) (Sanders, [0059]: “Output/results may be presented on the display 1022 or provided to another device for presentation or further processing or action.”).
Claim(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Harada in further view of Guruprasad et al. (US20200005089A1), hereinafter Guruprasad.
Regarding claim 9, Sanders/Harada teaches
at a computing system comprising a processor and memory (Sanders, [0057]: “FIG. 10 is an exemplary hardware and software environment 1000 (referred to as a computer-implemented system and/or computer-implemented method) used to implement one or more embodiments of the invention. … The computer 1002 comprises a hardware processor 1004A and/or a special purpose (hardware) processor 1004B (hereinafter alternatively collectively referred to as processor 1004) and a memory 1006, such as random access memory (RAM).”):
causing display of a first graphical user interface including a document … of an aircraft expectation document (Sanders, [0004]: “Likewise high-level requirements may be decomposed into one or more sub-requirements that are specified in a text based document that are provided to a detail designer. … Such a task consumes considerable time and communication while synchronizing the two-dimensional (2D) text documents with the three-dimensional (3D) solid/CAD modeling and the associated analysis and simulation.”) (Sanders, Fig. 4);
receiving a user input identifying a selected region of the document … (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0029]: “The parts catalog generation unit 236 creates parts catalog data 238 that defines links between images based on data IDs linked to part IDs in accordance with the correspondence input by the operator or user to the parts catalog creation support device 100, and images referenced by the part IDs, records the data on an appropriate recording medium, and makes the parts catalog data 238 available for use.”);
capturing data corresponding to the selected region of the document … (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”);
causing an allocation tree data structure to be displayed in the first graphical user interface, the allocation tree data structure defining a plurality of nodes (Sanders, [0039]: “In one or more embodiments, such structured requirements objects 400 are organized into an RFLP (requirements functional logical physical) tree (e.g., a hierarchically organized tree). For example, the RFLP tree may include a system (i.e., high level system) that contains logical collections of requirements, components, logical volumes, and physical components. As described above, the structured requirements objects may include functional and logical requirements for components.”) (Sanders, [0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … A textual hierarchical based list of the components of the fuselage are illustrated in component tree 502. A view of a logical system volume 504 is illustrated within system view 506. The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons)”),
respective nodes of the plurality of nodes corresponding to respective operational objectives of an aircraft, each respective operational objective of the aircraft including at least one of a respective required component of the aircraft, a respective required structure of the aircraft, a respective required function of a component of the aircraft, and a respective required function of the aircraft (Sanders, [0009]: “One or more logical system volumes are created in a component system using a computer-aided design (CAD) program. Each of the logical system volumes is an abstract geometric three-dimensional volume in a virtual context of the part to be physically produced.”) (Sanders, [0013]: “Each of the logical system volumes may consist of a skeleton. Some examples of skeletons are primary structure wireframe grids, movable mechanism representations, relational layout models (RLMs/Boeing), interface control models (ICMs/Boeing), and master datum files (MDFs/Boeing).”) (Sanders, [0014]: “As used herein, the term “skeleton” describes an abstract geometric representation of the resulting physical product. This abstraction is insufficient to produce the physical product but is sufficient to describe the unique physical features/components of the physical product.”);
in response to a user selection of a node of the allocation tree data structure, generating a reference data object that includes an identifier of the selected node and the data corresponding to the selected region of the document … (Sanders, [0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … A textual hierarchical based list of the components of the fuselage are illustrated in component tree 502. A view of a logical system volume 504 is illustrated within system view 506. The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”);
in response to receiving a requirement data object generation request, generating a requirement data object (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0053]-[0055]:“A GUI 1100 shown in FIG. 11 displays a field 1102 for specifying a project name used to identify the work of creating a parts catalog and an output destination for outputting parts catalog data. … When the operator performs a predetermined input on the GUI 1100 and then generates a mouse event for the "OK" button, the parts catalog creation process is started as a new project.”) (Harada, [0057]: “the parts catalog generation unit 236 obtains a set of part IDs, associated data IDs, and link destination information from the final work data management unit 224, and creates the parts catalog.”) (Harada, [0029]: “The parts catalog generation unit 236 creates parts catalog data 238 that defines links between images based on data IDs linked to part IDs in accordance with the correspondence input by the operator or user to the parts catalog creation support device 100, and images referenced by the part IDs, records the data on an appropriate recording medium, and makes the parts catalog data 238 available for use. The format of the parts catalog data 238 is not particularly limited, but considering versatility and device independence, it is preferable to create it as a structured document such as XML.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”),
the requirement data object comprising an engineering requirement for a portion of the aircraft and a link to the reference data object (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”) (Sanders, [0010]: “Further to the above, one or more specification objects may be created for a component. The specification objects consist of instructions regarding how to comply with each of the structured requirements objects. In addition, the specification objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes.”) (Harada, [0027]: “The parts catalog creation support device 100 further includes a work data management unit 224. The work data management unit 224 reads out the work file 206 stored on the recording medium via an appropriate interface … The service parts list/parts list 202, CAD data 204, and work file 206 shown in FIG. 2 may be stored in local storage, or if the recording medium is managed by a secure server, they can be accessed using appropriate secure communications.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”);
causing display of the requirement data object in a second graphical user interface, the requirement data object including the link to the reference data object (Sanders, [0009]: “One or more structured requirements objects are created for a component.”) (Harada, [0010]: “If the matching is successful, the parts catalog creation support device displays a graphical user interface (hereinafter referred to as GUI) that shows the association state.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”) (Harada, [0036]: “Furthermore, in order to make it easier for the operator to check the association state, the display units 510 and 520 display the part IDs and data IDs in a hierarchical manner so that the hierarchical structure of the machine elements can be visually recognized. In addition, in the hierarchical display, icon images 512 and 522 indicating the link state are displayed in a display format corresponding to the matching state.”); and
in response to receiving a selection of the link to the reference data object, causing at least one of the reference data object or the selected region of the document … to be displayed to a user (Sanders, [0043]: “The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Sanders/Harada does not explicitly teach the expectation document as an image.
However, Guruprasad teaches a business document as an image and extracting textual data from the image document ([0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”) ([0007]: “In a preferred embodiment, a method and system for enrichment of OCR extracted data is disclosed comprising accepting a set of extraction criteria and a set of configuration parameters by a data extraction engine. The data extraction engine captures data satisfying an extraction criteria using the configuration parameters and adapts the captured data using a set of domain specific rules and a set of OCR error patterns.”).
Sanders/Harada and Guruprasad are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing a document to extract data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Guruprasad’s teachings into Sanders/Harada to provide the requirements documents as images and extract textual data from them.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because business documents are often times in image, and it would be desirable to be able to extract textual data from the image documents because textual data would allow easier and more efficient processing and organization of information (Guruprasad, [0002]: “Organizations process large number of documents of different formats and populate the data into databases on a regular basis. The text in the document images is extracted using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) tools.”).
Therefore, the combination of Sanders/Harada and Guruprasad teaches
causing display of a first graphical user interface including a document image of an aircraft expectation document (Sanders, [0004]: “Likewise high-level requirements may be decomposed into one or more sub-requirements that are specified in a text based document that are provided to a detail designer. … Such a task consumes considerable time and communication while synchronizing the two-dimensional (2D) text documents with the three-dimensional (3D) solid/CAD modeling and the associated analysis and simulation.”) (Sanders, Fig. 4) (Guruprasad, [0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”);
receiving a user input identifying a selected region of the document image (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0029]: “The parts catalog generation unit 236 creates parts catalog data 238 that defines links between images based on data IDs linked to part IDs in accordance with the correspondence input by the operator or user to the parts catalog creation support device 100, and images referenced by the part IDs, records the data on an appropriate recording medium, and makes the parts catalog data 238 available for use.”) (Guruprasad, [0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”);
capturing data corresponding to the selected region of the document image (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Guruprasad, [0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”) (Guruprasad, [0007]: “In a preferred embodiment, a method and system for enrichment of OCR extracted data is disclosed comprising accepting a set of extraction criteria and a set of configuration parameters by a data extraction engine. The data extraction engine captures data satisfying an extraction criteria using the configuration parameters and adapts the captured data using a set of domain specific rules and a set of OCR error patterns.”);
in response to a user selection of a node of the allocation tree data structure, generating a reference data object that includes an identifier of the selected node and the data corresponding to the selected region of the document image (Sanders, [0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … A textual hierarchical based list of the components of the fuselage are illustrated in component tree 502. A view of a logical system volume 504 is illustrated within system view 506. The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”) (Guruprasad, [0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”);
in response to receiving a selection of the link to the reference data object, causing at least one of the reference data object or the selected region of the document image to be displayed to a user (Sanders, [0043]: “The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”) (Guruprasad, [0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”).
Regarding claim 10, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
the reference data object comprises an expectation item (Sanders, [0004]: “In aerospace and/or mechanical engineering, hundreds if not thousands of requirements may apply to different parts with respect to their design, location, etc. Compliance with such requirements is mandatory in order to properly design an airplane, a part/system within an airplane, or other mechanical part (e.g., an engine). … Likewise high-level requirements may be decomposed into one or more sub-requirements that are specified in a text based document that are provided to a detail designer. … In other words, the engineer takes the text based requirements documents and plans, and builds a detailed part in a solid/CAD modeling application.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”); and
the link to the reference data object is a link to the expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 11, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
the expectation item is a first expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”);
the reference data object comprises a second expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Sanders, [0038]: “FIG. 4 illustrates a native client view of a hierarchically organized structured requirements objects in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention.”);
the requirement data object is a first requirement data object (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0053]-[0055]:“A GUI 1100 shown in FIG. 11 displays a field 1102 for specifying a project name used to identify the work of creating a parts catalog and an output destination for outputting parts catalog data. … When the operator performs a predetermined input on the GUI 1100 and then generates a mouse event for the "OK" button, the parts catalog creation process is started as a new project.”);
the link to the reference data object is a link to the first expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”); and
a second requirement data object comprises an additional engineering requirement for the portion of the aircraft and a link to the second expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0053]-[0055]:“A GUI 1100 shown in FIG. 11 displays a field 1102 for specifying a project name used to identify the work of creating a parts catalog and an output destination for outputting parts catalog data. … When the operator performs a predetermined input on the GUI 1100 and then generates a mouse event for the "OK" button, the parts catalog creation process is started as a new project.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 12, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
including the link to the reference data object in the requirement data object in response to the user selecting the reference data object for inclusion in the requirement data object (Sanders, [0037]: “At step 302, one or more structured requirements objects are created for a component.”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0029]: “The parts catalog generation unit 236 creates parts catalog data 238 that defines links between images based on data IDs linked to part IDs in accordance with the correspondence input by the operator or user to the parts catalog creation support device 100, and images referenced by the part IDs, records the data on an appropriate recording medium, and makes the parts catalog data 238 available for use.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 13, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
in response to detecting the user selection of the reference data object for inclusion in the requirement data object, modifying the reference data object to include a link to the requirement data object (Sanders, [0010]: “In addition, the specification objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. Specification objects may have a many-to-many relationship with the logical system volumes. (i.e., each specification object may have a relationship with (may be mapped to) many logical system volumes, and each logical system volume may have a relationship with (may be mapped to) many specification objects)”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0029]: “The parts catalog generation unit 236 creates parts catalog data 238 that defines links between images based on data IDs linked to part IDs in accordance with the correspondence input by the operator or user to the parts catalog creation support device 100, and images referenced by the part IDs, records the data on an appropriate recording medium, and makes the parts catalog data 238 available for use.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 14, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
wherein the data corresponding to the selected region of the document image is an image file (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Guruprasad, [0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”) (Guruprasad, [0007]: “In a preferred embodiment, a method and system for enrichment of OCR extracted data is disclosed comprising accepting a set of extraction criteria and a set of configuration parameters by a data extraction engine. The data extraction engine captures data satisfying an extraction criteria using the configuration parameters and adapts the captured data using a set of domain specific rules and a set of OCR error patterns.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 15, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
at a computing system comprising a processor and memory (Sanders, [0057]: “FIG. 10 is an exemplary hardware and software environment 1000 (referred to as a computer-implemented system and/or computer-implemented method) used to implement one or more embodiments of the invention. … The computer 1002 comprises a hardware processor 1004A and/or a special purpose (hardware) processor 1004B (hereinafter alternatively collectively referred to as processor 1004) and a memory 1006, such as random access memory (RAM).”):
causing display of a reference data object user interface, the reference data object user interface including a document image of an aircraft expectation document and a document portion capture control (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Sanders, [0004]: “In aerospace and/or mechanical engineering, hundreds if not thousands of requirements may apply to different parts with respect to their design, location, etc. Compliance with such requirements is mandatory in order to properly design an airplane, a part/system within an airplane, or other mechanical part (e.g., an engine). … Likewise high-level requirements may be decomposed into one or more sub-requirements that are specified in a text based document that are provided to a detail designer. … In other words, the engineer takes the text based requirements documents and plans, and builds a detailed part in a solid/CAD modeling application.”) (Sanders, Fig. 4) (Guruprasad, [0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”) (Guruprasad, [0007]: “In a preferred embodiment, a method and system for enrichment of OCR extracted data is disclosed comprising accepting a set of extraction criteria and a set of configuration parameters by a data extraction engine. The data extraction engine captures data satisfying an extraction criteria using the configuration parameters and adapts the captured data using a set of domain specific rules and a set of OCR error patterns.”);
receiving, via the document portion capture control, a user selection of a region of the displayed document image, the region including immutable expectation content within the aircraft expectation document (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0029]: “The parts catalog generation unit 236 creates parts catalog data 238 that defines links between images based on data IDs linked to part IDs in accordance with the correspondence input by the operator or user to the parts catalog creation support device 100, and images referenced by the part IDs, records the data on an appropriate recording medium, and makes the parts catalog data 238 available for use.”) (Guruprasad, [0034]: “In order to extract text from Image documents (e.g., scanned document, Photo of a document taken from a camera, etc.), OCR tools are used.”) (Guruprasad, [0007]: “In a preferred embodiment, a method and system for enrichment of OCR extracted data is disclosed comprising accepting a set of extraction criteria and a set of configuration parameters by a data extraction engine. The data extraction engine captures data satisfying an extraction criteria using the configuration parameters and adapts the captured data using a set of domain specific rules and a set of OCR error patterns.”);
causing display of a node selection user interface including an allocation tree data structure defining a plurality of nodes (Sanders, [0039]: “In one or more embodiments, such structured requirements objects 400 are organized into an RFLP (requirements functional logical physical) tree (e.g., a hierarchically organized tree). For example, the RFLP tree may include a system (i.e., high level system) that contains logical collections of requirements, components, logical volumes, and physical components. As described above, the structured requirements objects may include functional and logical requirements for components.”) (Sanders, [0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … A textual hierarchical based list of the components of the fuselage are illustrated in component tree 502. A view of a logical system volume 504 is illustrated within system view 506. The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons)”),
respective nodes of the plurality of nodes corresponding to respective operational objectives of an aircraft, each respective operational objective of the aircraft including at least one of a respective required component of the aircraft, a respective required structure of the aircraft, a respective required function of a component of the aircraft, and a respective required function of the aircraft (Sanders, [0009]: “One or more logical system volumes are created in a component system using a computer-aided design (CAD) program. Each of the logical system volumes is an abstract geometric three-dimensional volume in a virtual context of the part to be physically produced.”) (Sanders, [0013]: “Each of the logical system volumes may consist of a skeleton. Some examples of skeletons are primary structure wireframe grids, movable mechanism representations, relational layout models (RLMs/Boeing), interface control models (ICMs/Boeing), and master datum files (MDFs/Boeing).”) (Sanders, [0014]: “As used herein, the term “skeleton” describes an abstract geometric representation of the resulting physical product. This abstraction is insufficient to produce the physical product but is sufficient to describe the unique physical features/components of the physical product.”);
receiving a selection of a node in the allocation tree data structure (Sanders, [0043]: “The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”);
receiving information defining an expectation item associated with the immutable expectation content, the information defining the expectation item corresponding to at least a description of the expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”);
in response to receiving the selection of the node and the information defining the expectation item, generating a reference data object including an identifier of the selected node and the information defining the expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”) (Sanders, [0010]: “Further to the above, one or more specification objects may be created for a component. The specification objects consist of instructions regarding how to comply with each of the structured requirements objects. In addition, the specification objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes.”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0053]-[0055]:“A GUI 1100 shown in FIG. 11 displays a field 1102 for specifying a project name used to identify the work of creating a parts catalog and an output destination for outputting parts catalog data. … When the operator performs a predetermined input on the GUI 1100 and then generates a mouse event for the "OK" button, the parts catalog creation process is started as a new project.”) (Harada, [0057]: “the parts catalog generation unit 236 obtains a set of part IDs, associated data IDs, and link destination information from the final work data management unit 224, and creates the parts catalog.”) (Harada, [0029]: “The parts catalog generation unit 236 creates parts catalog data 238 that defines links between images based on data IDs linked to part IDs in accordance with the correspondence input by the operator or user to the parts catalog creation support device 100, and images referenced by the part IDs, records the data on an appropriate recording medium, and makes the parts catalog data 238 available for use. The format of the parts catalog data 238 is not particularly limited, but considering versatility and device independence, it is preferable to create it as a structured document such as XML.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”);
causing display of a requirement data object user interface including a description field and a reference data object linking control (Sanders, [0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention.”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0010]: “If the matching is successful, the parts catalog creation support device displays a graphical user interface (hereinafter referred to as GUI) that shows the association state.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”) (Harada, [0036]: “Furthermore, in order to make it easier for the operator to check the association state, the display units 510 and 520 display the part IDs and data IDs in a hierarchical manner so that the hierarchical structure of the machine elements can be visually recognized. In addition, in the hierarchical display, icon images 512 and 522 indicating the link state are displayed in a display format corresponding to the matching state.”);
receiving, in the description field, an engineering requirement for a portion of the aircraft (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”);
receiving, via the reference data object linking control, a selection of an identifier associated with the expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”);
in response to receiving the selection of the identifier associated with the expectation item, generate a link to the reference data object that includes the expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”);
generating a requirement data object including the engineering requirement and the link to the reference data object that includes the expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”); and
causing display of the requirement data object, including causing display of the engineering requirement for the portion of the aircraft and the link to the reference data object (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects”) (Harada, [0010]: “If the matching is successful, the parts catalog creation support device displays a graphical user interface (hereinafter referred to as GUI) that shows the association state.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”) (Harada, [0036]: “Furthermore, in order to make it easier for the operator to check the association state, the display units 510 and 520 display the part IDs and data IDs in a hierarchical manner so that the hierarchical structure of the machine elements can be visually recognized. In addition, in the hierarchical display, icon images 512 and 522 indicating the link state are displayed in a display format corresponding to the matching state.”),
wherein selection of the link is configured to cause display of at least one of the reference data object or the user selected region of the displayed document image (Sanders, [0043]: “The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”) (Harada, [0025]: “In addition, since the link is related to the part ID of the parts list and the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, the link may be in the form of a line number of each data or a hyperlink.”) (Harada, [0036]: “Furthermore, in order to make it easier for the operator to check the association state, the display units 510 and 520 display the part IDs and data IDs in a hierarchical manner so that the hierarchical structure of the machine elements can be visually recognized. In addition, in the hierarchical display, icon images 512 and 522 indicating the link state are displayed in a display format corresponding to the matching state.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 16, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
wherein the reference data object linking control displays a list of candidate expectation items including the expectation item (Sanders, [0038]: “FIG. 4 illustrates a native client view of a hierarchically organized structured requirements objects in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”),
wherein each candidate expectation item of the list of candidate expectation items includes an indication of whether the respective candidate expectation item is linked to a respective requirement data object (Sanders, [0024]: “FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention”) (Sanders, [0043]: “FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”) (Sanders, [0038]: “As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400.”).
Regarding claim 17, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
the selection of the node is a first selection of the node during a reference data object generation operation (Sanders, [0039]: “In one or more embodiments, such structured requirements objects 400 are organized into an RFLP (requirements functional logical physical) tree (e.g., a hierarchically organized tree). For example, the RFLP tree may include a system (i.e., high level system) that contains logical collections of requirements, components, logical volumes, and physical components. As described above, the structured requirements objects may include functional and logical requirements for components.”) (Sanders, [0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … A textual hierarchical based list of the components of the fuselage are illustrated in component tree 502. A view of a logical system volume 504 is illustrated within system view 506. The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”); and
the method further comprises receiving a second selection of the node during a requirement data object generation operation (Sanders, [0039]: “In one or more embodiments, such structured requirements objects 400 are organized into an RFLP (requirements functional logical physical) tree (e.g., a hierarchically organized tree). For example, the RFLP tree may include a system (i.e., high level system) that contains logical collections of requirements, components, logical volumes, and physical components. As described above, the structured requirements objects may include functional and logical requirements for components.”) (Sanders, [0043]: “At step 306, the one or more structured requirements objects are linked to each of the logical system volumes. … FIG. 5 illustrates a completed requirements model where structured requirements objects have been linked to logical system volumes in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. … A textual hierarchical based list of the components of the fuselage are illustrated in component tree 502. A view of a logical system volume 504 is illustrated within system view 506. The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”).
Regarding claim 18, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
wherein the list of candidate expectation items displayed in the reference data object linking control are selected from reference data objects associated with the selected node of the allocation tree data structure (Sanders, [0038]: “FIG. 4 illustrates a native client view of a hierarchically organized structured requirements objects in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. As illustrated, lines from a requirements document (e.g., a spreadsheet) may be mapped to the structured requirements objects 400. For example, a list of reference documents may be mapped to the design philosophy and criteria 1 folder 402. Further, FAA regulations may be organized into/map to the FAA regulations folder 404. In addition, structure requirements may be mapped to the structure A folder 406. In this regard, each line of a requirements document/spreadsheet may be understood/mapped to requirements, specifications, folders, and chapter objects within a hierarchy of structured requirements objects 400 (e.g., a 3DX source available from DASSAULT SYSTEMS). Such a mapping/system enabling a digital thread for storing, reading, modifying, organizing etc. of the structured requirements objects.”) (Sanders, [0043]: “The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”).
Regarding claim 19, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
in response to receiving the second selection of the node during the requirement data object generation operation, prepopulating the requirement data object with information from the selected node (Sanders, [0043]: “The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Regarding claim 20, Sanders/Harada/Guruprasad teaches
in response to receiving the second selection of the node during the requirement data object generation operation, prepopulating the requirement data object with information from a reference data object associated with the selected node (Sanders, [0043]: “The user interface 500 also includes a textual list 508 of the logical system volumes (also referred to as system implemented volumes and skeletons) and upon selecting a particular logical system volume (either from the text list 508 or in system view 506), the applicable structed requirements objects 510 may be displayed.”) (Harada, [0009]: “The parts catalog creation support device acquires the parts list and three-dimensional CAD data used at the production site, first calls an automatic link section and uses the part ID registered in the parts list as a search key to search for the data ID of the three-dimensional CAD data, and matches the part ID with the data ID while referring to the parts hierarchical structure between the parts list and the three-dimensional CAD data to establish mutual correspondence between the data.”) (Harada, [0044]: “Thereafter, in step S705, a parts catalog is generated by associating the part ID, data ID, and image ID, and the work file and parts catalog data are saved, and the process ends in step S706.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (KR102407990B1) – discloses providing preventive maintenance information using operational environment data for new aircraft development by storing and providing operational information and environmental information for each component.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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 at (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 2188
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186