DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed January 20, 2026 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 19, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-15 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 19, 2025, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mattson does not teach reconfiguring a behavior of a CAD model based on the selected category for each problem relationship by retaining each optional relationship where user operation is not prevented by the retained optional relationship, ignoring each optional relationship where the user operation is prevented by the ignored relationship, and ignoring relaxed relationships. Specifically, Applicant argues that Mattson does not teach (1) retaining each optional relationship where user operation is not prevented by the respective optional relationship and (2) ignoring each optional relationship where the user operation is prevented by the respective optional relationship.
Regarding this argument, the Examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0026] of Mattson recites that “Optional constraints are those that are applied to the model only if they do not prevent a given edit from occurring;” As a corollary, optional constraints in Mattson may not be applied if they prevent a given edit from occurring. This discloses the limitations in the instant claims of retaining each optional relationship of the optional relationships wherein user operation is not prevented by the respective optional relationship (i.e., optional constraints applied if they do not prevent a given edit) and ignoring each optional relationship of the optional relationships where the user operation is prevented by the respective optional relationships (i.e., optional constraints not applied if they do prevent a given edit). Furthermore, the instant claims do not differentiate method of identifying edit preventing constraints from the method of Mattson.
An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0012546 A1), hereinafter Mattson, in view of Miller (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0326876 A1), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 1, Mattson teaches A computer-implemented method for designing a product using a three-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) model, the method being implemented in a data processing system (“Various disclosed embodiments include methods for product data management, corresponding systems, and computer-readable mediums.”) (e.g., paragraph [0004]).
and comprising: receiving, by a processor of the data processing system, a 3D CAD model having a behavior defined by a plurality of relationships (“The system receives a CAD model (step 305). This can be a 2D or 3D model, and the model includes a plurality of features and constraints, including optional constraints.”) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
receiving, by the processor, a user operation to edit a seed feature in the 3D CAD model (“The system receives a user operation (step 310). The user operation is an edit the user is making to the model by manipulating at least one seed feature.”) (e.g., paragraph [0064]).
identifying, by the processor, a set of problem relationships from the plurality of relationships (“FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate required and optional constraints, in accordance with disclosed embodiments. FIG. 2A shows a simple model of two lines 202 and 204 that are constrained to be a specified distance apart. In this case, line 202 is also constrained to be fixed in location.” The required and optional constraints are interpreted as problem relationships.) (e.g., paragraph [0027]).
wherein the set of problem relationships prevent implementation of the received user operation to the received 3D CAD model (“If the system or user attempts to move line 204 to the right, as illustrated, the move edit would fail in a conventional constraint system. This is due to the rigid distance constraint between the line 204 being moved and line 202.”) (e.g., paragraph [0028]).
selecting, by the processor, a category for each relationship in the set of problem relationships, wherein the category is selected from user-defined (“The system identifies a plurality of optional constraints corresponding to the user operation (step 315).” Optional constraints corresponding to a user operation are interpreted as a user-defined category.) (e.g., paragraph [0065]).
optional (“the model includes a plurality of features and constraints, including optional constraints.”) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
and relaxed relationships (“The system or user can order the optional constraints by the following logic to get the correct behavior […] Drop some optional constraints based on special conditions.” Ording constraints to identify dropped constraints is interpreted as identifying relaxed relationships, wherein the dropped constraints are relaxed relationships.) (e.g., paragraphs [0085] and [0089]).
wherein a user-defined relationship is a relationship defined by the user (“The system can prioritize a given set of behavior classes with respect to each other,” the behavior classes corresponding to constraints, “to give a general optional constraint order. This prioritization could be […] controlled by the user via options if necessary.”) (e.g., paragraph [0050]).
and wherein optional relationships and relaxed relationships are relationships not defined by the user with the optional relationships representing more important behavior than the relaxed relationships (“The system sorts the optional constraints (step 320). The sorting can be according to any or all of the properties described above, including by behavior class, by information known about each feature being constrained, by distance from the edit (seed feature), or by static model properties.” The constraints sorted as more important are interpreted as the optional relationships, and the constraints sorted as less important are interpreted as relaxed relationships.) (e.g., paragraph [0066]).
reconfiguring, by the processor, the behavior of the 3D CAD model based on the selected category for each problem relationship (“The system or user can order the optional constraints by the following logic to get the correct behavior.” Ordering the constraints is interpreted as reconfiguring the behavior of the CAD model, wherein the ordering is based on the category for each relationship.) (e.g., paragraph [0085]).
by: retaining each user-defined relationship of the user-defined relationships (“Regular constraints which may prevent a model from being edited […] Behavior could be controlled by adding regular constraints to the system.” Adding regular, required constraints is analogous to retaining user-defined relationships, wherein a user may add the required constraints.) (e.g., paragraphs [0026] and [0030]).
each optional relationship of the optional relationships where user operation is not prevented by the respective optional relationship (“Optional constraints are those that are applied to the model only if they do not prevent a given edit from occurring.” The applied optional constraints are retained relationships that do not prevent a given edit.) (e.g., paragraph [0026]).
ignoring each optional relationship of the optional relationships where the user operation is prevented by the respective optional relationship (“Optional constraints are those that are applied to the model only if they do not prevent a given edit from occurring.” The unapplied optional constraints are ignored relationships that prevent a given edit.) (e.g., paragraph [0026]).
and ignoring each relaxed relationship of the relaxed relationships (“The system or user can order the optional constraints by the following logic to get the correct behavior […] Drop some optional constraints based on special conditions.” Dropping constraints is interpreted as ignoring constraints.) (e.g., paragraphs [0085] and [0089]).
producing, by the processor, a modified 3D CAD model by performing the user operation according to the reconfigured behavior (“The system performs the operation according to the applied constraints (step 335) to produce a modified CAD model.”) (e.g., paragraph [0072]).
and storing, by a memory, the modified 3D CAD model and/or displaying, by a display, the modified 3D CAD model (“The graphics adapter 110 may be connected to display 111 […] The system stores the modified CAD model (step 340), and can also display the modified CAD model.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0018] and [0073]).
or the optional relationships and the relaxed relationships that are broken when performing the user operation (Figure 1 discloses display 111, which may be used to display “the following order for the example of model 400,” wherein the order table comprises a status indicating a constraint as applied or not applied.) (e.g., figure 1 and paragraph [0090]).
However, Mattson does not appear to specifically teach the method comprising selecting, by the processor a category for each relationship in the set of problem relationships.
On the other hand, Miller, which relates similarly to CAD design, does teach selecting, by the processor, a category for each relationship in the set of problem relationships (“In some embodiments, Quick Path uses two primary sets of constraints that drive the determination of a valid set of path points. Hard Constraints are constraints that Quick Path guarantees will not be violated by the resulting path. Soft Constraints are constraints that Quick Path attempts to satisfy while finding a path, but does not guarantee that they will be satisfied by the resulting path.” Using two primary sets of constraints is interpreted as selecting a category for relationships.) (e.g., paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Mattson with Miller. The claimed invention is considered to be merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Mattson teaches a method for applying optional constraints during a user edit to a CAD model. However, Mattson does not appear to specifically teach grouping constraints into different categories. On the other hand, Miller does teach grouping constraints into different categories, namely “hard” (required) and “soft” (optional) constraints (e.g., Miller, paragraph [0039]). As both Mattson and Miller relate to CAD modelling, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that grouping constraints as in Miller into required user defined constraints, optional constraints, and relaxed constraints would have yielded the predictable improvement of creating a CAD model that satisfies all user defined constraints instead of optionally applying user constraints as in Mattson. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to improve the constraint application of Mattson with the constraint grouping of Miller in order to provide more user control over CAD constraints.
Regarding Claim 2, Mattson in view of Miller teaches The method of claim 1. Mattson further teaches the method further comprising: identifying a second set of problem relationships in the reconfigured behavior (“Of course, those of skill in the art will recognize that, unless specifically indicated or required by the sequence of operations, certain steps in the processes described above may be omitted, performed concurrently or sequentially, or performed in a different order.” Thus, the identification may be repeated. “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate required and optional constraints, in accordance with disclosed embodiments. FIG. 2A shows a simple model of two lines 202 and 204 that are constrained to be a specified distance apart. In this case, line 202 is also constrained to be fixed in location.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0027] and [0074]).
wherein the second set of problem relationships prevent the user operation being performed (“If the system or user attempts to move line 204 to the right, as illustrated, the move edit would fail in a conventional constraint system. This is due to the rigid distance constraint between the line 204 being moved and line 202.”) (e.g., paragraph [0028]).
and repeating the selecting of the category, the reconfiguring of the behavior, and the performing of the user operation (“The system repeats steps 320, 325, and 330 until there are no remaining identified constraints that have not been applied.”) (e.g., paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 4, Mattson in view of Miller teaches The method of claim 1. Mattson further teaches wherein the the optional relationships comprises: sorting the optional relationships into an order in which the optional relationships are to be applied (“The system sorts the optional constraints (step 320). The sorting can be according to any or all of the properties described above, including by behavior class, by information known about each feature being constrained, by distance from the edit (seed feature), or by static model properties.”) (e.g., paragraph [0066]).
applying a sorted optional relationship which is first in the order in which the optional relationships are to be applied (“The system applies the first sorted optional constraint (step 325).”) (e.g., paragraph [0068]).
retaining the applied sorted optional relationship only when applying the relationship does not prevent the user operation (“"DNM-line 2" and "DNM line 3" are also equal, but a special case for tipping rules that are equal distance is established where both rules are dropped so as not to force undesirable behavior.”) (e.g., paragraph [0089]).
and repeating the applying and retaining steps to the sorted optional relationship which is next in the order in which the optional relationships are to be applied until all optional relationships have been applied (“The system repeats steps 320, 325, and 330 until there are no remaining identified constraints that have not been applied.”) (e.g., paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 5, Mattson in view of Miller teaches The method of claim 4. Mattson further teaches wherein the sorting of the optional relationships is performed according to a distance from the seed feature to features corresponding to each of the optional relationships (“"Distance from the edit" refers to the shortest distance between a geometry with an optional constraint applied to it and the "seeds" of the operation, when measured with respect to objects in the model.”) (e.g., paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mattson in view of Miller teaches The method of claim 4. Mattson further teaches wherein the optional category relationships comprise optional model relationships inherent from the model (“the model includes a plurality of features and constraints, including optional constraints.”) (e.g., paragraph [0063]).
and optional editing relationships which are inherent from the user operation (“The system identifies a plurality of optional constraints corresponding to the user operation (step 315)”) (e.g., paragraph [0065]).
and wherein the sorting of the optional relationships is performed to prioritize optional editing relationships before optional model relationships in the order in which the optional relationships are to be applied (“Information known about the feature: Some optional constraints may be added to the system to ensure some general behavior of a particular feature. For example [...] [the] user can define desirable behavior properties.” The sorting may be performed to prioritize information known about the feature, which would prioritize user defined relationships.) (e.g., paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 8, Mattson in view of Miller teaches The method of claim 1. Mattson further teaches wherein the display outputs the optional relationships and the relaxed relationships that are broken when performing the user operation (Figure 1 discloses display 111, which may be used to display “the following order for the example of model 400,” wherein the order table comprises a status indicating a constraint as applied or not applied.) (e.g., figure 1 and paragraph [0090]).
Regarding Claim 9, Mattson teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying processor control code (“A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more data processing systems to: [perform a CAD method].”) (e.g., Claim 15).
The remaining limitations of Claim 9 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 10, Mattson teaches A data processing system for designing a product using a three-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) model, the system comprising: a processor […] and a memory (“A data processing system comprising: a processor; and an accessible memory.”) (e.g., claim 8).
The remaining limitations of Claim 10 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 8, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14, Mattson in view of Miller teaches The data processing system of claim 10. Mattson further teaches wherein the display is configured to output the modified 3D CAD model (“The graphics adapter 110 may be connected to display 111 […] The system stores the modified CAD model (step 340), and can also display the modified CAD model.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0018] and [0073]).
Regarding Claim 15, Mattson in view of Miller teaches The data processing system of claim 10. Mattson further teaches wherein the product is a component of a valve assembly, a component of an engine, a gear in a gear assembly, a component of an electric motor, or a component from a washing machine (Figure 4 illustrates a basic component that may be used in a valve assembly, engine, motor, or washing machine.) (e.g., figure 4).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson in view of Miller, further in view of Autodesk (Autodesk. “About Using a Block Properties Table.” AutoCAD 2017 Help. 2017. https://help.autodesk.com/view/ACD/2017/ENU/?guid=GUID-64C09188-A89D-401D-AA8B-45EFB3EF783E), hereinafter Autodesk.
Regarding Claim 3, Mattson in view of Miller teaches The method of claim 1. However, neither Mattson nor Miller appear to specifically teach the method wherein the selecting of the category from the optional relationships and the relaxed relationships comprises selecting the category from a look-up table listing relationships as optional or relaxed.
On the other hand, Autodesk, which is a help guide for CAD software AutoCAD, does teach wherein the selecting of the category from optional and relaxed relationships comprises selecting the category from a look-up table listing relationships as optional or relaxed (“You can define and control values for parameters and properties within a dynamic block definition using a Block Properties table […] A table can include any of the following parameters and properties […] Constraint parameters.” The Block Properties table is a look-up table, wherein the constraint parameters may comprise a constraint category.) (e.g., page 1, paragraphs 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Mattson with Autodesk. The claimed invention is considered to be merely using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Mattson teaches a method for applying constraints during a user edit of a CAD model. However, Mattson does not appear to specifically teach selecting a constraint category from a look-up table. On the other hand, Autodesk, in a help guide for popular CAD software, does teach using a Block Properties table to store constraint information. As both Mattson and Autodesk relate to CAD modelling, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used the properties table from Autodesk to store and recall the constraint categories in Mattson, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to select the constraint categories of Mattson from a block properties table of Autodesk in order to efficiently save and retrieve constraint information for a CAD model.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 3, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parthasarathy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0282343 A1) teaches a method using hard and soft constraints, wherein the soft constraints may or may not be applied during the solving of the design problem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights