DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 2/16/2026
Claims 6 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Final Action
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.
Response to Arguments
Specification
The Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the objection as outlined in the previous Office action. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn and the abstract dated 2/16/2026 is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 was previously objected to because it was not a sentience as required. The Applicant, however, has amended claim 6 and accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 20 has been amened in order to overcome the rejection outlined in the previous Office action. The rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant asserts that Al-wswasi_2019 is focused on enumerating and comparing individual faces and not on identifying higher-level tube-specific structural regions or any sweep path or continuous tube geometry and states that, in contrast, the region-determination step in the claimed invention is a specific , tube-centric geometric analysis that is not disclosed taught, or suggested in Al-wswasi_2019 and that paragraphs 38, 39, 43 and FIGS. 3A-3D and 6 of the specification provide support for the region-determination process.
Therefore, at issue is whether the art of record makes obvious “tube-centric geometry” and makes obvious identifying higher-level tube-specific structural regions and any sweep path or continuous tube geometry as disclosed paragraphs 38, 39, 43 and FIGS. 3A-3D and 6 of the specification.
In response the argument is not persuasive because the Applicant is improperly seeking to import elements from the specification into the claim and because the Applicant is incorrectly characterizing the art as only “enumerating” structures.
The examples of tubes illustrated in FIG. 3A – 3D and FIG. 6 of the instant specification provide examples of tubes, however, the claim does not require those specific tubes. The claim merely recites “determining… one or more regions of the tube using a set of connected top faces of the tube, wherein each of the one or more regions is a section of the tube with a constant sweep path, and wherein each of the one or more regions is one of a length region, a bend region, or a spline region…”
Al-Wswasi_2019 makes these elements obvious in a variety of teachings and images. For example, Section 3.1.2 surface teaches regions of an object can be “a surface is an indicator of the face type… such as plane, cylindrical, conical, and toroidal…”. Fig. 2 further illustrates that cylinders and toroidal surfaces (i.e., regions) make of the faces of objects. This is further illustrated in FIG. 3 shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 clearly illustrates regions of a cylinder. Fig. 9 further illustrates an object with faces. The faces for a tube that is open on both ends. Al-wswasi_2019 calls these faces toroidal, having a sweep around a central axis and also an outside sweep that results in the openings having different diameter. This shape is a flared tube. This clearly illustrates a section of the tube with a constant sweep path and illustrates that each section is a bend region
PNG
media_image2.png
596
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Fig. 11 clearly illustrates a cylinder with a hollow center. The hollow center is a “blind hole”, however, this clearly illustrates a constant sweep of the cylinder wall around the Z axis and also illustrates that the outer surface has length “a”. Accordingly, the cylinder wall surfaces illustrated in Fig. 3 are length regions.
PNG
media_image3.png
251
788
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, that a cylinder can be hollow and open on both ends is made obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art by, for example, FIG. 12 and FIG. 19 which shows parts that have holes through the part and are open on both ends. Indeed, FIG. 12 illustrates a blind hole next a hole with flared openings on both ends.
PNG
media_image4.png
513
783
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While it is true that in FIG. 19 and Tables 3 and 4 the citation enumerates the determined faces, this enumeration demonstrates that the regions of the tube have been determined. There is nothing in the claims which prohibits the determined regions from being enumerated as part of the determining process. Moreover, the Tables provide a coordinate reference only the central Z axis which demonstrates that the identified regions are at least one of a length region.
Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that the instant application determines regions by first identifying a set of connected faces on the outside of the tube and then groups them together into sections sharing a constant sweep trajectory and that this is not derivable from Al-wswasi_2019.
The Argument is not persuasive. Al-wswasi_2019 clearly teaches to identify/classify a set of connected faces on the outside of a tube and group them together into a constant sweep trajectory. For example, FIG. 9 shows connecting faces to form a flared tube. FIG. 11, 12, 19 further illustrate that the faces can be of the claimed top, bottom, or lateral faces. Additionally, FIG. 11 surely makes obvious that the cylinder with a hole in it is symmetric around the Z axis which make obvious that a hollow cylinder has a consistent sweep path around the z axis. Also, Requicha_1980 illustrates a tube with a constant sweep in, for example, Figure 10.
The Applicant further asserts that the cited reference does not make obvious that the elements are “one of a bend element, a length element, or a spline element”.
In response the argument is not persuasive. The Figures clearly illustrate the determined faces with respect to a coordinate system along, for example, a Z axis. Accordingly, these elements have length and are therefore “length elements”. For example, section 3.3.4 states: “… the coordinate system in turning machines is XZ, where X represents the diameter and Z represents the axis of rotation or length. This is the same system adopted to develop the sorting algorithm in this work since it is created for rotational parts. Accordingly, Al-wswasi_2019 shows hollow components that are open on both ends (i.e., tubes) that have a length straight along the Z axis.
The Applicant argues that Garimella_2017 does not generate the pipes.
The argument is not persuasive because Garimella_2018, at par 29, explicitly states: “in example embodiments… the GUI may be used by a user to generate, modify, and display a three dimensional (3D) representation…”.
End Response to Arguments
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.
Claims 1, 9, 17, 2, 10, 18, 3, 11, 19, 4, 12, 8, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-wswasi_2019 (A novel and smart interactive feature recognition system for rotational parts using a STEP file, The international Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2019) in view of Velden_2010 (Extracting Engineering Features from B-Rep Geometric Models, 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS 2010) in view of Requicha_1980 (Representations of Rigid Solids: Theory, Methods, and Systems, Production Automation Project, College of Engineering and Applied Science, The University of Rochester, Computing Surveys, Vol. No. 4 December 1980) in view of Garimella_2017 (US 2017/0032057 A1).
Claim 1. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “A method for automatically identifying tube elements in a[STEP] computer Aided Design (CAD) model of a tube (abstract: “… automatic feature recognition (AFR) is considered an indispensable concept for transferring product data between computer-aided design (CAD)… this paper presents a novel and smart interactive AFR (SI-AFR) methodology…”; Fig. 12 illustrates internal passages. Fig. 19 illustrates internal passage. Table 4 indicates that the internal passage of Fig 19 is a cylindrical through shape. Fig. 9 illustrates a tube with toroidal face/surface. EXAMINER NOTE: the object illustrated in FIG. 19 is a “tube” because there is an internal through hole. The thickness of the walls of the “tube” simply vary along the length of the tube. Further, the object of Fig. 9 illustrates a tube because it also has a through hole.), the method comprising: extracting, by an element recognition device, information corresponding to the [STEP] CAD model of the tube (abstract: “… extract the features’ geometrical and topological information from a STEP file…”; 265 section 3: “extracting geometrical and topological data from STEP files. STEP is an International Standard (ISO 10303) that is computer readable…”); (classifying, by the element recognition device, each of a plurality of faces of the tube into one of a set of face types upon successful validation, wherein the set of face types comprises a top face, a bottom face, or a lateral face, wherein the top face is located on outer surface of the tube, the bottom face is located on inner surface of the tube, and the lateral face is located on cross-section of the tube” (page 266 section 3.1.2 surfaces: “a surface is an indicator of the face type which can take only one prospect, such as a plane, cylindrical, conical, and toroidal… a cylindrical surface… toroidal surface…” Fig. 3 illustrates a classification into top faces and lateral faces of a cylinder. FIG. 19 illustrates classification of top faces on the outside of the object. This is further shown in Table 3 “external features”. Feature number 1 “Facing”, in table 3, is a lateral facing classification. FIG. 19 also illustrates classification of bottom faces located on the inner surface of the tube. Table 4 “internal shape” shows the inner surface classifications. Also, FIG. 12 and associated paragraphs clearly teach the classification of faces into outer surfaces, inner surfaces, and lateral surfaces.); determining, by the element recognition device, one or more regions on the tube using a set of connected top faces on the tube wherein each of the one or more regions is a section of the tube with a consistent sweep path, and wherein each of the one or more regions is one of a length region, a bend region, or a spline region (FIG. 8, 9, 19 Table 3, Table 4);
While Al-wswasi_2019 teaches and ISO 10303 STEP file, and while this may be properly found to make obvious a “Boundary Representation (B-REP)-based” computer Aided Design (CAD) model because those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an ISO 10303 STEP file is a file format that is used for B-Rep models, nevertheless, Al-wswasi_2019 does not EXPLICITLY recite “Boundary Representation (B-REP)-based” nor “B-REP-based.”
Al-wswasi_2019 does not teach “validating, by the element recognition device, geometrical features of the B-REP based CAD model of the tube based on the extracted information”.
Al-wswasi_2019 does not teach “Generating, by the element recognition device, a plurality of primary tube elements based on shapes of the plurality of regions, wherein each of the plurality of primary tube elements is one of a bend element, a length element, or a spline element.”
Velden_2010; however, makes obvious “Boundary Representation (B-REP)-based” and “B-REP-based” CAD models (abstract: “… Automatic Feature Recognition (AFR)… this paper introduces a new AFR framework for extracting analysis features from B-Rep models (in STEP format)…” EXAMINER NOTE: this citation clearly teaches that B-Rep models are in STEP file format.).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called feature recognition/CAD tools. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010. The rationale for doing so would have been that Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to extract data from STEP files in order to perform Automatic Feature Recognition, and Velden_2010 explicitly teaches that STEP files contain B-Rep models. Therefore, Velden_2010 makes clear that the ISO STEP files taught by Al-wswasi_2019 contain B-Rep models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 for the benefit of having access to International Standard Organization formatted STEP files that provide a standard interoperable format that contain the B-Rep data needed to perform Automatic Feature Recognition to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 does not teach “validating, by the element recognition device, geometrical features of the B-REP based CAD model of the tube based on the extracted information”
Requicha_1980, however, makes obvious “validating, by the element recognition device, geometrical features of the B-REP based CAD model of the tube based on the extracted information” (page 442 section 1.4.2: “… representational validity is of obvious importance in ensuring the integrity of databases, in that databases should not contain symbol structures which correspond to nonsense objects. Invoking a geometric algorithm on an invalid representation may produce a system crash, obviously suspect result, or, in the worst case, results which appear to be credible but are in fact meaningless… this may be done by providing algorithms to check the validity of representations after they have been constructed…”).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Requicha_1980 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called computer-based systems for modeling geometry. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Requicha_1980. The rationale for doing so would have been Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to extract geometric representational data from a STEP file (i.e., B-Rep based CAD model) and to use this information for sharing and collaboration with other downstream application (See abstract: “… transferring product data between computer-aided design (CAD) and automatic computer-aided process planning (ACAPP)…”). Requicha_1980 explicitly teaches that validation of geometric representations is “of obvious importance” because ensuring integrity of data prevents system crashes and erroneous results from the CAD tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Requicha_1980 for the benefit of preventing system crashes and erroneous results caused by incorrect geometrical features in the CAD model to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 and Requicha_1980 does not teach “Generating, by the element recognition device, a plurality of primary tube elements based on shapes of the plurality of regions, wherein each of the plurality of primary tube elements is one of a bend element, a length element, or a spline element.”
Garimella_2017, however, makes obvious “Generating, by the element recognition device, a plurality of primary tube elements based on shapes of the plurality of regions, wherein each of the plurality of primary tube elements is one of a bend element, a length element, or a spline element” (FIG. 1 block 108: Display Device 118: GUI 120 Pipe Routing Run; FIG. 3 illustrates straight and bend elements of a pipe. FIG. 4 406 Pipe 1, 408 Elbow; FIG. 8; FIG. 14 block 1406: “cause a display device to output a 3D representation of the routing run based at least in part on the distributed routing path stored in the data store…” par 29: “in example embodiments… the GUI may be used by a user to generate, modify, and display a three dimensional (3D) representation…”; par 33: “… CAD software may thus open the file and generate a rendering of the pipeline routing assembly…”).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Garimella_2017 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called computer-based systems for modeling geometry. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Garimella_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been Al-wswasi_2019 teaches a software application that extracts geometric representational data from a STEP file (i.e., B-Rep based CAD model) and to use this information for sharing and collaboration with other downstream application (See abstract: “… transferring product data between computer-aided design (CAD) and automatic computer-aided process planning (ACAPP)…”). Garimella_2017 teaches to have a “collaborative virtual mechanical routing development system and method” (title) that “facilitates collaborative development of virtual mechanical routing” (abstract) that takes as input CAD data and generates a graphical display of the mechanical objects/geometric representations. Indeed, Garimella_2017 explicitly teaches that “the described application software component 104 that carries out the features described herein may… be integrated into CAD/CAM/CAE… and/or any other type of software that may be used to develop a mechanical routing system…” (par 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Garimella_2017 for the benefit of collaborating between upstream and downstream software in the mechanical product development process and also because Garimella_2017 explicitly teaches to combine features such as generating a graphical display of geometric objects with “any other type of software” to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. It would also simply be beneficial for a user to see a graphical image of the geometric object.
Claim 9. The limitations of claim 9 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further Garimella_2017 makes obvious the additional limitations of “A system… the system comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions, which, on execution, cause the processor to:” (FIG. 1; FIG. 15; par 25: “… the system 100 may include at least one processor 102 that is configured to execute one or more application software components 104 from a memory 106 in order to carry out the various features described here…”).
Claim 17. The limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further, Garimella_2017 makes obvious the additional limitations of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions… the computer-executable instructions configured for…” (par 5: “… non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with executable instructions (such as software component on a storage device) that when executed, causes at least one processor to carry out this described method…”).
Claim 2, 10, 18. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “further comprising generating a set of secondary tube elements based on the plurality of primary tube elements” (FIG. 9 illustrates a secondary tube element d based on merging primary symmetrical toroidal elements illustrated in c.; Table 4: Through internal shape is a secondary tube element based on three primary tube elements: Right Axial Groove Element, Cylindrical Element, Two Side Tapered Groove Element.).
Garimella_2017 makes obvious “further comprising generating a set of secondary tube elements based on the plurality of primary tube elements” (FIG. 4 424 routing assembly is a secondary tube element based on, for example, a pipe 406 and elbow 408; FIG. 9 illustrates primary elements pipe 304 and elbow 306 that FIG 8 is based on.).
Claim 3, 11, 19. Al-wswasi_2019 illustrates a convex shape around a cylinder in Fig. 6 which may properly make obvious “wherein the set of secondary tube elements comprise a collar element” to those of ordinary skill in the art because a “collar” is simply a device or component that fits around a tube/pipe/etc. and Fig. 6 clearly illustrates a component that fits around a cylinder, nevertheless, Al-wswasi_2019 does not EXPLICITY recite “collar.”
Garimella_2017, however, teaches a pipe flange (FIG. 4 404 Flange/A; FIG. 9 304 Flange 1/A. par 31: “… pipeline routing runs may also include elements such as fittings 216 (e.g., flanges/elbows/tees)… that are used in the construction of these pipelines…” EXAMINER NOTE: In FIG 8 and 9 the pipe flanges are collars that connect pipes to other pipes and other equipment.
Therefore, it would be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to have a device or component that fits around a tube/pipe/etc. for the benefit of connecting elements in a mechanical assembly together.
Claim 4, 12, 20. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “wherein extracting information further comprises identifying the plurality of faces from the B-Rep based CAD model of the tube” (page 267: “… the parser that was developed in this work imports a STEP AP 203 file and scans all of its lines to find many closed shells there are in the design as well as how many faces each contain. Then, each face is displayed with all of its geometrical and topological information…”).
Claim 8, 16. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “further comprising: determining a plurality of element parameters of each of the plurality of tube elements of the tube; and determining a plurality of tube parameters of the tube based on the plurality of element parameters” (Fig. 20, Table 3, Table 4).
Claims 5, 13, 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-wswasi_2019 in view of Velden_2010 in view of Requicha_1980 in view of Garimella_2017 in view of Li_2015 (Hint-based generic shape feature recognition from three-dimensional B-rep models, Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2015).
Claim 5, 13. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “wherein validating geometrical features of the B-Rep based CAD model comprises: determining a tube type for the tube corresponding to the B-Rep based CAD model based on the extracted information, wherein the tube type is one of a hollow type, a solid type, or a mixed type (Fig. 3 is a solid cylinder type, Fig 8 and 9 are hollow, Fig. 11 is cylinder with a blind hole which mixes hollow and solid. Fig. 12 is also of type mixed. Fig. 19 as per Fig. 20 determines the tube to be a “closed shell” which is hollow) and wherein determining comprises: Identifying one or more faces from the plurality of faces in the B-Rep-based CAD model; and analyzing the one or more faces of the B-Rep-based CAD model to determine the tube type” (Fig. 20 illustrates that the closed shell is identified according to at least a plurality of faces 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. )
Li_2015, however, makes obvious “… one or more clue faces…” (abstract: “… meaningful shape features need to be recognized from the B-rep models… by analyzing the shape variation or hint for a Boolean operation in computer-aided design modeling…”; page 2: “… in this article, a novel hint-based generic shape feature recognition approach is proposed… a hint-based general shape feature recognition approach… such shape variations can be defined as hints…”).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Li_2015 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called recognition of B-rep models. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Li_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to recognize parts from B-rep models (STEP) files and Li_2015 teaches a hint-based approach that is capable of recognizing intersecting features using hints about Boolean operations that allow the identification of generic shape features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Li_2015 for the benefit of being able to recognize fundamental shape features when more complex intersecting features exist in the B-Rep model to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 6, 14. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “further comprising: calculating a sweep path of the tube (page 281: “…check the convexity or concavity of toroidal faces, finding MaxZ and MinZ as well as MaxX and MinX for each. Then, merge similar cylindrical faces, similar toroidal faces, adjacent toroidal faces and similar conical faces. Also, sorting faces based on MaxZ and splitting ones that related to holes. The final step in this example is the feature recognition process, when the system compares the part’s faces with the set of predefined features using the proposed methodology provided in Section 4.1. Moreover, it provides information to the user about the external and three internal shapes. Whilst both the external and internal shapes include the feature’s name and information about the faces that form it, the specific details for them are different. That is, regarding the external shape, the system gives the following for each face: X and Z start point values (Xsp, Zsp), X and Z end point values (Xep, Zep) as well as the type of movement from the start to end points (linear or circler). Also, if the face is toroidal, additional data are provided: X centre value of the curve (Xcc), curve radius (CR), and the direction of the curve (CW or CCW). Furthermore, the maximum depth (D) and width (W) of each feature are calculated and printed in the interface window. Whereas the internal shapes’ information are detailed as follows: X centre value (Xc), Y centre value (Yc), Z centre start (Zcs), radius of Zcs (RZcs), Z centre end (Zce), radius of Zce (RZce), and the type of movement from the start to end points (linear or circler). Also, the X centre value of the curve (Xcc), curve radius (CR), and the direction of the curve (CW or CCW) are provided in the case of toroidal faces. Figure 20 and Tables 3, and 4 show” EXAMINER NOTE: for a cylinder the start point and end point is the sweep path. The center of the curve and radius and direction also define a sweep path. In order to show these in the GUI the software necessarily must calculate them. Also in the above citation it says “each feature are calculated”.)
Requicha_1980 makes obvious “and validating consistency of circular cross-section of the tube (page 444 section 1.6 Consistency and Equivalence: “… one must ensure that the various symbol structures which allegedly represent the same object (or objects) in different schemes do not carry contradictory information… in geometric modeling, for example, it is important to require that (representations of) the top and front views of an object be consistent… it is unreasonable to require that the top and front views be equivalent… the need to enforce consistency has important implications for the design of multiple-algorithm GMS…” EXMAMINER NOTE: the above citation teaches to perform consistency checking, on the top and front of geometric objects. For a tube or pipe the “front” is a circular cross-section of the tube.).
Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-wswasi_2019 in view of Velden_2010 in view of Requicha_1980 in view of Garimella_2017 in view of Li_2015 in view of Kang_2003 (An approach for interlinking design and process planning, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 139 (2003)).
Claim 7, 15. Kang_2003 makes obvious “further comprising: determining thickness of the tube based on the tube type using the extracted information; and Validating uniformity of the determined thickness of the tube” (section 2.3: “… STEP is aimed to define a standard file that includes all information necessary to describe a product from design to production… including materials, part geometry, dimensions and tolerances…”; section 3: “… a tolerance processor, a feature recognizer… the tolerance processor assigns the relevant technology information such as surface roughness, and dimensional and geometric tolerance. The outcome is a geometry model with tolerance assignments… once a physical STEP file of AP224 format is generated, any downstream activities… can be annotated. Page 592: “… tolerance information is to be attached to the Parasolid model… surface roughness, straightness, flatness, cylindricity, and so no… dimensional tolerance can be face to face, face to edge, face to vertex, edge to vertex of vertex to vertex…” Fig. 4 shows the data structure array”).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Kang_2003 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called B-Rep Models and geometric representations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Kang_2003. The rationale for doing so would have been that Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to extract B-rep model data from STEP files and Kang_2003 explicitly teaches to have STEP files that include tolerancing information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Kang_2003 for the benefit of having tolerancing information to improve the quality of the mechanical system to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Additionally, Requicha_1980 and Kang_2003 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called geometric representations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Requicha_1980 and Kang_2003. Kang_2003 explicitly teaches to have STEP files that include tolerancing information and Requicha_1980 teaches that it is important to verify geometric data to avoid system crashes and incorrect results when using the model data and also to perform consistency verification. Therefore, in combination, Kang_2003 teaches to include tolerancing information about the geometric parts into STEP files such as face-to-face tolerances. Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to read geometric information from STEP files and Requicha_1980 teaches to verify geometric information before using it. Therefore, it would be obvious to “determining thickness of the tube based on the tube type using the extracted information; and Validating uniformity of the determined thickness of the tube” because an inside face to outside face is a thickness tolerance defined by a face-to-face tolerance which would be verified when extracting it from a STEP file.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187