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 .
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on December 18, 2025. Claim 8 has been cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0136031 A1 Feldman, Steven et al. [herein “Feldman”] in view of Ng, F. M., James Millar Ritchie, and J. E. L. Simmons. "The design and planning of cable harness assemblies." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 214, no. 10 (2000): 881-890 [herein “Ng”].
This action is made Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 30, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 11-16 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machine; and claims 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of a articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11, and 17: The limitations of:
“validate the selection of parameters”,
“based on the connector family selections and the cable style selection indicated in the character delimited input file, filters table records indicating pre-validated connectors corresponding to a plurality of connector families, to determine filtered table records”,
“scans the filtered table records to find matched table records that match the parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product”,
“determines, based on the matched table records, model parameters associated with each connector of the cable assembly product”,
“generating, based on the CAD template assembly and the model parameters associated with the connectors, a model of the cable assembly product”, and
“generate, based on the selection of parameters, a character delimited input file” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be performed as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper that the selected parameters are valid for a cable assembly if each of the cable assembly components (connector, cable type) exists,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a first filtered result for valid connectors for the cable by eliminating connectors and cables that are not in the desired connector family or cable style as provided in set of given input parameters for the desired cable,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a second filtered result of connectors by further eliminating connectors that do not contain the correct connector parameters such as connector terminal material,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper from the second filtered result of connectors a connector along with its physical layout properties that meets the specified connector parameter for the cable assembly,
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper from the template for the cable assembly and selected connector layout properties a model drawing of the cable assembly, and
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a comma separated file that contains the selected parameters for a cable assembly for which to send the selected parameters.
Furthermore, the specification recites these steps can be conducted by person, e.g., an engineer, team, or user, in Para. 0003 (“user may provide a rough sketch or a description of requirements for the cable assembly, then an engineer may manually create 3D models and drawings of the cable assembly”) and in Para. 0039, (“the user may submit the request via the interface and the CAD configuration process may be initiated (either by having an e-mail notification with the input cable specifications being sent to a team for manual processing - as illustrated in FIG. 1, or by having an e-mail notification with the input cable specifications being sent to the team and saved to a server for automated processing - as illustrated in FIG. 2)”, where FIG. 1 shows the generation of the 2D drawing and 3D model of the cable assembly).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 11, and 17 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 11, and 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“executing, by the server device, an automation background thread”, “by the server device”, “digital model”, “generating, by the server device and based on the digital model of the cable assembly product, a graphic design file of the cable assembly product to display on the user client device”, “A system”, “a user device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of the user device”, “via a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display associated with the user device”, “the server device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by an at least one processor of the server device” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in at least one computing device,” which are merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements;
“receiving, at a server device and from a user client device, a selection of parameters for the cable assembly product in a character delimited input file, wherein the selection of parameters indicates: a computer aided design (CAD) template assembly to be used for generation of the graphical rendering of the cable assembly product; connector family selections corresponding to connectors of the cable assembly product; parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product; and a cable style selection for the cable assembly product”, “accesses a CAD template assembly corresponding to a CAD template part file associated with the CAD template indicated by the selection of parameters”, and “send, to a server device, the character delimited input file” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data outputting activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application;
“sending, by the server device to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility, the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data outputting activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 11, and 17 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 11, and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, field of use/technological environment, and instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 11, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 18, they recite an additional limitation of “adding the connector part files to the CAD template assembly”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally add or draw with pen and paper the name of the corresponding data for the connector and layout properties such as dimensions that was selected for use in the model to the template of the cable assembly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 2, 12, and 18, they recite additional element recitations of “retrieving, from a memory associated with the server device and based on the model parameters associated with the connectors, connector part files” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 12, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 19, they recite additional limitations of “determines model parameters associated with the cable based on the parameters associated with the cable” and “generating the model of the cable assembly product further based on the model parameters associated with the cable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper by eliminating cables that are not the desired cable style as provided in set of given input parameters and selecting a cable along with its physical layout properties that meets the specified cable parameters such as cable length, and a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper from the template for the cable assembly and selected connector and cable layout properties a model drawing of the cable assembly. Furthermore, the specification recites these steps can be conducted by person, e.g., an engineer, team, or user, in Para. 0003 (“user may provide a rough sketch or a description of requirements for the cable assembly, then an engineer may manually create 3D models and drawings of the cable assembly”) and in Para. 0039, (“the user may submit the request via the interface and the CAD configuration process may be initiated (either by having an e-mail notification with the input cable specifications being sent to a team for manual processing - as illustrated in FIG. 1, or by having an e-mail notification with the input cable specifications being sent to the team and saved to a server for automated processing - as illustrated in FIG. 2)”, where FIG. 1 shows the generation of the 2D drawing and 3D model).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 3, 13, and 19, they recite additional element recitations of “the selection of parameters for the cable assembly product further indicate parameters associated with a cable connecting the connectors of the cable assembly product” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the following additional elements “the automation background thread” and “digital model” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 20, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the model parameters associated with the cable indicate: a wire geometry associated with the cable, a pin pair configuration between pins corresponding to the connectors, and a bundling geometry associated with the cable determines model parameters associated with the cable based on the parameters associated with the cable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper from the template for the cable assembly and selected connector and cable layout properties a model drawing of the cable assembly, where the connector and cable layout properties include location of cable pins, cable pins association between connects, and cable bunding geometry. Furthermore, the specification recites these steps can be conducted by person, e.g., an engineer, team, or user, in Para. 0003 (“user may provide a rough sketch or a description of requirements for the cable assembly, then an engineer may manually create 3D models and drawings of the cable assembly”) and in Para. 0039, (“the user may submit the request via the interface and the CAD configuration process may be initiated (either by having an e-mail notification with the input cable specifications being sent to a team for manual processing - as illustrated in FIG. 1, or by having an e-mail notification with the input cable specifications being sent to the team and saved to a server for automated processing - as illustrated in FIG. 2)”, where FIG. 1 shows the generation of the 2D drawing and 3D model).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the selection of parameters is validated”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper that the selected parameters are valid for a cable assembly if each of the cable assembly components (connector, cable type) exists
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 15, they recite additional element recitations of “at the user client device by a client-side scripting code executing on the user client device” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional element recitation of “sending, by the server device to the user client device, the graphic design file of the cable assembly product” is merely an insignificant extra-solution data outputting activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional element recitation of “generating a bill of materials (BOM) for the cable assembly product”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the list of components required to create the desired cable assembly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, it recites an additional element recitation of “by the server device” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the graphic design file comprises a three-dimensional model file of the cable assembly product” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the graphic design file comprises a two-dimensional image file of the cable assembly product” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-7 and 9-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-7 and 9-10; claims 12-16; and claims 18-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1, 11, and 17, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0136031 A1 Feldman, Steven et al. [herein “Feldman”] in view of Ng, F. M., James Millar Ritchie, and J. E. L. Simmons. "The design and planning of cable harness assemblies." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 214, no. 10 (2000): 881-890 [herein “Ng”].
As per claim 1, Feldman teaches “A method for generating, a graphical rendering of a cable assembly product on a computer display by filtering and validating the cable assembly product”. (Para. 0036, “FIG. 9 shows an alternative electronic design method (58), which includes selecting the type of article to design (60), inputting design data for the article type selected (62), and automatically designing one or more articles (64). The method (58) begins by selecting the type of article to design (60). For example, a high-speed cable assembly could be the type of article selected for design from a static list of article types” [A method for generating a cable assembly product]. “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) also includes designing one or more articles with one or more characteristics based on an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type” [by filtering and validating the cable assembly product]. Para. 0030, “user selection signals the system (20) to virtually assemble the cable (34) and the connectors (36, 40) in the workplace (26) into a cable assembly (44)” [generating a graphical rendering of a cable assembly product on a computer display]. FIG. 4 shows the graphical display of the cable assembly is on a computer display. Further see Para. 0036-0037 and 0030. The examiner has interpreted that an electronic design method that automatically designs cable assemblies based on an algorithmic match between the input data and stored data for the cables of the selected type and virtually displays the cable assembly as a method for generating a graphical rendering of a cable assembly product on a computer display by filtering and validating the cable assembly product).
Feldman teaches “receiving, at a server device and from a user client device, a selection of parameters for the cable assembly product in a character delimited input file”. (Para. 0036, “The method (58) continues by inputting design data for an article of the selected type (62). Design data is input by manually entering data through menu selections, keyboard entries, mouse clicks, voice commands, etc. or by electronically importing data from another source. The design data input includes performance results and/or characteristics of the article” [receiving a selection of parameters for the cable assembly product in an input file]. Para. 0036, “The design data input includes performance results and/or characteristics of the article” [the selection of parameters]. Para. 0018, “Characteristics: one or more variables upon which a particular electronic design or identification depends, for example, physical characteristics of a cable assembly, such as cable length, connector types, boardmount connectors, carriers, polarizing keys, or retainers” [cable length is a selected parameter]. Para. 0034, “cable length could be made selectable in discrete steps so that each selected cable length could be matched to stored graphical attenuation performance results. Eye diagrams are an example of a still more complex performance model requiring algorithmic computations, because they require several user inputs such as data rate, signal rise time, signal amplitude and cable length. In this example, an algorithm generates a data table as shown in FIG. 7, which in turn can be charted as an eye diagram using common spreadsheet functions as shown in FIG. 8” [cable length presented in a common spreadsheet, e.g., a character delimited file]. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client” [e.g., receiving, at a server device and from a user client device]. Further see Para. 0018, 0034, 0036 and 0041. The examiner has interpreted importing characteristics of the article such as cable length in common spreadsheet function across a communication network between a server and a client as receiving, at a server device and from a user client device, a selection of parameters for the cable assembly product in a character delimited input file.)
Feldman teaches “wherein the selection of parameters indicates: a computer aided design (CAD) template to be used for generation of the graphical rendering of the cable assembly product; connector family selections corresponding to connectors of the cable assembly product; parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product; and a cable style selection for the cable assembly product”. (Para. 0036, “The design data input includes performance results and/or characteristics of the article” [wherein the selection of parameters]. Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) includes inputting additional design data as necessary to design one or more articles of the selected type (64a). The additional design data input (64a) is automatically presented based on the article type selected and the design data already input” [data retrieved based on article type, i.e., a CAD template to be used for generation of the graphical rendering of the cable assembly product]. Para. 0022, “Design data: one or more variables used to define, partially or completely, a finished design, including characteristics and performance results” [i.e., a CAD template of the assembly]. Para. 0018, “Characteristics: one or more variables upon which a particular electronic design or identification depends, for example, physical characteristics of a cable assembly, such as cable length, connector types, boardmount connectors, carriers, polarizing keys, or retainers” [connector family selections corresponding to connectors of the cable assembly product]. Para. 0029, “The system (20) automatically displays component descriptions (38) in the identification window (28) by retrieving and presenting textual or numeric information associated with the cable (34) and the connector (36)”, and FIG. 3 cites 38 as “2mm SCI terminated to 50 ohm coax, 26 AWG” [parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product]. Para. 0036, “For example, a high-speed cable assembly could be the type of article selected for design from a static list of article types” [a cable style selection for the cable assembly product]. Further see Para. 0018, 0022, 0029, and 0036. The examiner has interpreted that design data that is inputs the characteristics of the article including 1) additional design data based on the type of the article to define a finished design presented based on the article type selected, 2) connector types, 3) connector component descriptions such as a 2mm SCI, and 4) a type of the article being a high-speed cable as wherein the selection of parameters indicates: a computer aided design (CAD) template to be used for generation of the graphical rendering of the cable assembly product; connector family selections corresponding to connectors of the cable assembly product; parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product; and a cable style selection for the cable assembly product.)
Feldman teaches “executing, by the server device, an automation background thread configured to validate, the selection of parameters”. (Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) also includes designing one or more articles with one or more characteristics based on an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type” [executing an automation background thread configured to validate the selection of parameters]. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client” [e.g., by the server device]. Further see Para. 0036 and 0041. The examiner has interpreted that automatically designing articles where an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type occurs that is processed on a server as executing, by the server device, an automation background thread configured to validate the selection of parameters.)
Feldman teaches “wherein the automation background thread: accesses a CAD template assembly corresponding to a CAD template part file associated with the CAD template indicated by the selection of parameters”. (Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) includes inputting additional design data as necessary to design one or more articles of the selected type (64a). The additional design data input (64a) is automatically presented based on the article type selected and the design data already input” [data retrieved based on article type, i.e., accesses a CAD template assembly corresponding to a CAD template part file associated with the CAD template indicated by the selection of parameter]. Para. 0036, “For example, a high-speed cable assembly could be the type of article selected for design from a static list of article types” [a cable style selection for the cable assembly product]. Para. 0022, “Design data: one or more variables used to define, partially or completely, a finished design, including characteristics and performance results” [input data based on a finished design of the selected cable style, i.e., a CAD template of the assembly]. Further see Para. 0022 and 0036. The examiner has that automatically designing the articles where design data inputs the characteristics of the article including additional design data based on the type of the article to define a finished design completely as wherein the automation background thread: accesses a CAD template assembly corresponding to a CAD template part file associated with the CAD template indicated by the selection of parameters.)
Feldman teaches “based on the connector family selections and the cable style selection indicated in the character delimited input file, filters table records indicating pre-validated connectors corresponding to a plurality of connector families, to determine filtered table records” and “scans the filtered table records to find matched table records that match the parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product”. (Para. 0036, “The method (58) begins by selecting the type of article to design (60). For example, a high-speed cable assembly could be the type of article selected for design from a static list of article types” [based on the cable style selection]. Para. 0036, “The method (58) continues by inputting design data for an article of the selected type (62). Design data is input by manually entering data through menu selections, keyboard entries, mouse clicks, voice commands, etc. or by electronically importing data from another source. The design data input includes performance results and/or characteristics of the article” [based on cable style selections indicated in the input file]. Para. 0034, “cable length could be made selectable in discrete steps so that each selected cable length could be matched to stored graphical attenuation performance results. Eye diagrams are an example of a still more complex performance model requiring algorithmic computations, because they require several user inputs such as data rate, signal rise time, signal amplitude and cable length. In this example, an algorithm generates a data table as shown in FIG. 7, which in turn can be charted as an eye diagram using common spreadsheet functions as shown in FIG. 8” [cable length presented in a common spreadsheet, e.g., a character delimited file]. Para. 0018, “Characteristics: one or more variables upon which a particular electronic design or identification depends, for example, physical characteristics of a cable assembly, such as cable length, connector types, boardmount connectors, carriers, polarizing keys, or retainers” [based on the connector family selections]. Para. 0029, “The system (20) automatically displays component descriptions (38) in the identification window (28) by retrieving and presenting textual or numeric information associated with the cable (34) and the connector (36)”, and FIG. 3 cites 38 as “2mm SCI terminated to 50 ohm coax, 26 AWG” [parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product]. Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) also includes designing one or more articles with one or more characteristics based on an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type” [filters table records indicating pre-validated connectors corresponding to a plurality of connector families, to determine filtered table records and scans the filtered table records to find matched table records that match the parameters associated with the connectors]. Further see Para, 0018, 0029, and 0036. The examiner has interpreted that selecting cable type of the article and inputting design data characteristics of the cable assembly such as the cable length, connector type and connector component description through a common spreadsheet function to automatically design the article using an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type as based on the connector family selections and the cable style selection indicated in the character delimited input file, filters table records indicating pre-validated connectors corresponding to a plurality of connector families, to determine filtered table records and scans the filtered table records to find matched table records that match the parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product.)
Feldman teaches “determines, based on the matched table records, model parameters associated with each connector of the cable assembly product”. (Para. 0028, “As the cable assembly is electronically designed, a description of the assembly in the workspace (26) is automatically generated and displayed in the identification window (28). The description of the cable assembly design can be a written description, stock number, UPC code, skew number, etc.” [determines model parameters based on the matched table records]. Para. 0029, “The system (20) automatically displays component descriptions (38) in the identification window (28) by retrieving and presenting textual or numeric information associated with the cable (34) and the connector (36)”, and FIG. 3 cites 38 as “2mm SCI terminated to 50 ohm coax, 26 AWG” [parameters associated with each connector of the cable assembly product]. Further see Para. 0028-0029. The examiner has interpreted that the cable assembly being designed with a written description of information associated with the connector such as a 2mm SCI and stock, UPC, and skew number as determines, based on the matched table records, model parameters associated with each connector of the cable assembly product.)
Feldman teaches “generating, by the server device, based on the CAD template assembly and the model parameters associated with the connectors, a digital model of the cable assembly product”. (Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) includes inputting additional design data as necessary to design one or more articles of the selected type (64a). The additional design data input (64a) is automatically presented based on the article type selected and the design data already input” [data retrieved based on article type, i.e., based on the CAD template]. Para. 0036, “For example, a high-speed cable assembly could be the type of article selected for design from a static list of article types” [a cable style selection for the cable assembly product]. Para. 0022, “Design data: one or more variables used to define, partially or completely, a finished design, including characteristics and performance results” [input data based on a finished design of the selected cable style, i.e., based on the CAD template of the assembly]. Para. 0028, “As the cable assembly is electronically designed, a description of the assembly in the workspace (26) is automatically generated and displayed in the identification window (28). The description of the cable assembly design can be a written description, stock number, UPC code, skew number, etc.” [model parameters]. Para. 0029, “The system (20) automatically displays component descriptions (38) in the identification window (28) by retrieving and presenting textual or numeric information associated with the cable (34) and the connector (36)”, and FIG. 3 cites 38 as “2mm SCI terminated to 50 ohm coax, 26 AWG” [based on model parameters associated with the connectors]. Furthermore, Para. 0030, “This user selection signals the system (20) to virtually assemble the cable (34) and the connectors (36, 40) in the workplace (26) into a cable assembly (44). The identification window (28) displays an assembly stock number (46) in addition to the component descriptions (38). The stock number (46) contains "-XXX.X," which will change to a numeric value indicating cable assembly length when that data is input” [i.e., the CAD template]. Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) also includes designing one or more articles with one or more characteristics based on an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type (64b). The method (58) concludes by arriving at a finished article design (66), which is selected from the one or more articles automatically designed (64)” [generating a digital model of the cable assembly product]. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client” [e.g., by the server device]. Further see Para. 0022, 0028-0030, 0036 and 0041. The examiner has interpreted that automatically designing the articles using an algorithmic math between the design data input and design data stored for article type to arrive at a finished article design that is processed on a server where design data inputs the characteristics of the article including additional design data based on the type of the article to define a finished design completely in addition to displaying the assembly stock number and the further based on component information associated with the connector such as a 2mm SCI and stock, UPC, and skew number as generating, by the server device, based on the CAD template assembly and the model parameters associated with the connectors, a digital model of the cable assembly product.)
Feldman teaches “generating, by the server device and based on the digital model of the cable assembly product, a graphic design file of the cable assembly product to display on the user client device.” (Para. 0030, “the system (20) to virtually assemble the cable (34) and the connectors (36, 40) in the workplace (26) into a cable assembly (44)”. FIG. 4 shows a representation on the cable assembly displayed in the design system, e.g., generating, based on the digital model of the cable assembly product, a graphic design file of the cable assembly product to display. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server” [e.g., by the server device] “and other components stored and processed on a client” [e.g., on the user client device]. Further see Para. 0030 and 0041. The examiner has interpreted that virtually assembling the cable and the connectors to form the cable assembly that was processed on a server to generate a visual representation displayed in the design system processed on a client as generating, by the server device and based on the digital model of the cable assembly product, a graphic design file of the cable assembly product to display on the user client device.)
Feldman does not specifically teach “sending, by the server device to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility, the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product.”
However, Ng teaches “sending, by the server device to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility, the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product.” (Abstract: “Bundle of cables known as harness” [cable assembly product]. Pg. 884 Sect. 3, “Cable assemblies are described as being made up of three major features: end connectors, transitions and bundles of cables. Transitions (or junctions) are positions where cables branch. For a given set of connectors, there are typically many possible arrangements that satisfy the pin-to-pin connections. Park et al. developed a system called `First-Link' that combines electrical and mechanical disciplines to assist engineers in designing harness layouts. The system uses `agents' to coordinate and to ensure that changes made at any point in the design are updated throughout the whole process. In this context, `agents' are described as software components that automate routine design tasks and provide specialized interfaces for different aspects of the design” [e.g., design of a cable assembly product]. Pg. 883, Sect. 3, “the ComputerVisionTM CAD system was customized to design cable harnesses for the control equipment `cases' that are produced for electric trains” [e.g., by the server device]. Pg. 882-883 Sect. 2, “Once a suitable harness is designed, there is a requirement to provide all the information needed for the harness to be manufactured as a subassembly in its own right. This includes two-dimensional draws such as the simple example in Fig. 2 and bills of materials with cable types, length, end connectors, and fixing points” [sending the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product]. “It is vital that this information is accurate and well-proven since the actual manufacture of the harness assembly is often carried out by an external specialist supplier” [e.g., sending to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility]. Pg. 888 Sect. 5, “the cable designs, including the wiring, parts lists and two-dimensional drawings, are used for the manufacture and assembly of prototype harnesses” [sending the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product]. “The assembled harness is installed onto a physical prototype in order to ascertain the feasibility of the paths”. Further see Sect. 2-3 and 5. The examiner has interpreted that using the cable assembly designed in a CAD system to generate part lists and drawings for manufacture and assembly of the cable harness to be installed into a prototype by an external specialist supplier as sending, by the server device to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility, the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “sending, by the server device to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility, the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Ng, into that of Feldman because this modification of sending the design to a manufacturer for the advantageous purpose of creating a physical instant of the cable assembly design (Ng, Pg. 884 Sect. 5). Further motivation to combine be that Feldman and Ng are analogous art to the current claim are directed to automatic modeling of a cable assembly design.
As per claim 2, Feldman teaches “retrieving, from a memory associated with the server device and based on the model parameters associated with the connectors, connector part files, and adding the connector part files to the CAD template assembly”. (Para. 0028, “As the cable assembly is electronically designed, a description of the assembly in the workspace (26) is automatically generated and displayed in the identification window (28). The description of the cable assembly design can be a written description, stock number, UPC code, skew number, etc.” [model parameters]. Para. 0029, “The system (20) automatically displays component descriptions (38) in the identification window (28) by retrieving and presenting textual or numeric information associated with the cable (34) and the connector (36)”, and FIG. 3 cites 38 as “2mm SCI terminated to 50 ohm coax, 26 AWG” [based on model parameters associated with the connectors, retrieving connector part]. FIG. 3 shows that connectors 36 and 40 are selected from a connector pallet, e.g., retrieving connector part files. Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) also includes designing one or more articles with one or more characteristics based on an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type (64b). The method (58) concludes by arriving at a finished article design (66), which is selected from the one or more articles automatically designed (64)”. FIG. 4 shows the completed cable assembly from the combined connectors and cables, e.g., adding the connector part files to the CAD template assembly. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server” [e.g., from a memory associated with by the server device] “and other components stored and processed on a client”. Further see Para. 0028-0029. The examiner has interpreted that generating a description based on component information associated with the connector such as a 2mm SCI and stock, UPC, and skew number to retrieve connectors from a connector pallet and used to finish the cable assembly that is processed on a server as retrieving, from a memory associated with the server device and based on the model parameters associated with the connectors, connector part files, and adding the connector part files to the CAD template assembly.)
As per claim 3, Feldman teaches “the selection of parameters for the cable assembly product further indicate parameters associated with a cable connecting the connectors of the cable assembly product”. (Para. 0036, “The design data input includes performance results and/or characteristics of the article” [wherein the selection of parameters for the cable assembly product]. Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) includes inputting additional design data as necessary to design one or more articles of the selected type (64a). The additional design data input (64a) is automatically presented based on the article type selected and the design data already input” [e.g., inputting data based on type]. Para. 0018, “Characteristics: one or more variables upon which a particular electronic design or identification depends, for example, physical characteristics of a cable assembly, such as cable length” [further indicate parameters associated with a cable]. FIG 4 shows that the cable connects the connectors to form the cable assembly product. Further see Para. 0018 and 0036. The examiner has interpreted that design data that is inputs the characteristics of the article including cable length for the cable in use for the cable assembly with connectors as the selection of parameters for the cable assembly product further indicate parameters associated with a cable connecting the connectors of the cable assembly product.)
Feldman teaches “the automation background thread determines model parameters associated with the cable based on the parameters associated with the cable”. (Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) also includes designing one or more articles with one or more characteristics based on an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type” [e.g., the automation background thread based on the parameters]. Para. 0028, “As the cable assembly is electronically designed, a description of the assembly in the workspace (26) is automatically generated and displayed in the identification window (28). The description of the cable assembly design can be a written description, stock number, UPC code, skew number, etc.” [determines model parameters]. Para. 0029, “The system (20) automatically displays component descriptions (38) in the identification window (28) by retrieving and presenting textual or numeric information associated with the cable (34) and the connector (36)”, and FIG. 3 cites 38 as “2mm SCI terminated to 50 ohm coax, 26 AWG” [parameters associated with the cable]. Further see Para. 0028-0029. The examiner has interpreted that the automatic cable assembly designed with a written description of information associated with the cable such as impedance and gauge and stock, UPC, and skew number as the automation background thread determines model parameters associated with the cable based on the parameters associated with the cable.)
Feldman teaches “generating the digital model of the cable assembly product comprises generating the digital model of the cable assembly product further based on the model parameters associated with the cable.” (Para. 0028, “As the cable assembly is electronically designed, a description of the assembly in the workspace (26) is automatically generated and displayed in the identification window (28). The description of the cable assembly design can be a written description, stock number, UPC code, skew number, etc.” [model parameters]. Para. 0029, “The system (20) automatically displays component descriptions (38) in the identification window (28) by retrieving and presenting textual or numeric information associated with the cable (34) and the connector (36)”, and FIG. 3 cites 38 as “2mm SCI terminated to 50 ohm coax, 26 AWG” [based on model parameters associated with the cable]. Para. 0036, “Automatically designing one or more articles (64) also includes designing one or more articles with one or more characteristics based on an algorithmic match between the design data input and design data stored for a group of articles of the selected type (64b). The method (58) concludes by arriving at a finished article design (66), which is selected from the one or more articles automatically designed (64)” [generating a digital model of the cable assembly product]. Further see Para. 0028-0036 and 0036. The examiner has interpreted that automatically designing the articles using an algorithmic math between the design data input and design data stored for article type to arrive at a finished article design by displaying the assembly stock number and the further based on component information associated with the cable such as impedance, gauge, stock, UPC, and skew number as generating the digital model of the cable assembly product comprises generating the digital model of the cable assembly product further based on the model parameters associated with the cable.)
As per claim 4, Feldman teaches “wherein the model parameters associated with the cable indicate: a wire geometry associated with the cable, [a pin pair configuration between pins corresponding to the connectors,] and a bundling geometry associated with the cable.” (Para. 0028, “The system (20) automatically prevents bringing incompatible elements into the workspace (26)”. Para. 0018, “Characteristics: one or more variables upon which a particular electronic design or identification depends, for example, physical characteristics of a cable assembly, such as cable length, connector types, boardmount connectors, carriers, polarizing keys, or retainers” [e.g., wherein the model parameters associated with the cable indicate: a wire geometry associated with the cable and a bundling geometry associated with the cable]. Further see Para. 0028 and 0018. The examiner has interpreted that including polarizing keys in the cable assembly to prevent incompatible elements in the design as wherein the model parameters associated with the cable indicate a wire geometry associated with the cable, and a bundling geometry associated with the cable.)
Feldman does not specifically teach “a pin pair configuration between pins corresponding to the connectors”.
However, Ng teaches “a pin pair configuration between pins corresponding to the connectors”. (Pg. 884 Sect. 3, “Cable assemblies are described as being made up of three major features: end connectors, transitions and bundles of cables. Transitions (or junctions) are positions where cables branch. For a given set of connectors, there are typically many possible arrangements that satisfy the pin-to-pin connections. Park et al. developed a system called `First-Link' that combines electrical and mechanical disciplines to assist engineers in designing harness layouts. The system uses `agents' to coordinate and to ensure that changes made at any point in the design are updated throughout the whole process. In this context, `agents' are described as software components that automate routine design tasks and provide specialized interfaces for different aspects of the design” [e.g., a pin pair configuration between pins corresponding to the connectors]. “The system operates first by accepting a wiring list as entered to produce a default harness configuration. To generate different harness configurations, designers are provided with tools to rearrange the positions of bundle and subharness bundles within the cable assembly. The number of wires and harness constraints such as bundle diameter and bend radii in the affected bundles will automatically be updated” [e.g., a wire geometry associated with the cable and a bundling geometry associated with the cable]. Further see Sect. 3. The examiner has interpreted that using automated routine design task to make changes on arrangements that satisfy the pin-to-pin connections of the connectors and arrangement on the positions of the bundle and number of wires constraints such as bundle diameter as a pin pair configuration between pins corresponding to the connectors and a wire geometry associated with the cable, and a bundling geometry associated with the cable. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “a pin pair configuration between pins corresponding to the connectors” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Ng, into that of Feldman because this modification of configuring the connections of the pins of the connectors for the advantageous purpose of ensuring that the cable assembly configuration meets constraints (Ng, Pg. 884 Sect. 3). Further motivation to combine be that Feldman and Ng are analogous art to the current claim are directed to automatic modeling of a cable assembly design.
As per claim 5, Feldman teaches “wherein the selection of parameters is validated at the user client device by a client-side scripting code executing on the user client device.” (Para. 0036, “The method (58) concludes by arriving at a finished article design (66), which is selected from the one or more articles automatically designed (64). A feedback loop (68) enables the selection step (60), the input step (62), and the design step (64) to be repeated as necessary to arrive at multiple article designs, to refine a single article design based on input design data, or to arrive at an article design that is a best fit or closest match to the design data input” [wherein the selection of parameters is validated]. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client” [e.g., validated at the user client device by a client-side scripting code executing on the user client device]. Further see Para. 00306 and 0041. The examiner has interpreted that implements a feedback loop that enables the selection step to refine the design based on input design data that is processed on a client as wherein the selection of parameters is validated at the user client device by a client-side scripting code executing on the user client device)
As per claim 6, Feldman teaches “sending, by the server device to the user client device, the graphic design file of the cable assembly product.” (Para. 0037, “The system (70) then presents the user with the one or more twinax cable assembly designs matching the input design data and the degree to which the one or more cable assemblies match the input design data” [sending the graphic design file of the cable assembly product]. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client” [e.g., by the server device to the user client device]. Further see Para. 0037 and 0041. The examiner has interpreted presenting the user with the cable assembly designs across a communication network between a server and a client as sending, by the server device to the user client device, the graphic design file of the cable assembly product.)
As per claim 7, Feldman does not specifically teach “generating, by the server device, a bill of materials (BOM) for the cable assembly product.”
However, Ng teaches “generating, by the server device, a bill of materials (BOM) for the cable assembly product.” (Pg. 883, Sect. 3, “the ComputerVisionTM CAD system was customized to design cable harnesses for the control equipment `cases' that are produced for electric trains” [e.g., by the server device]. Pg. 888 Sect. 5, “Wiring lists describing the `from-to' wire connection list and preliminary parts lists are generated from the diagrams produced”. Further see Sect. 5. The examiner has interpreted that generating a parts list from the diagrams produced of the cable in a CAD system as generating, by the server device, a bill of materials (BOM) for the cable assembly product.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “generating, by the server device, a bill of materials (BOM) for the cable assembly product” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Ng, into that of Feldman because this modification of creating a BOM for the advantageous purpose of manufacturing a physical instant of the cable assembly design (Ng, Pg. 884 Sect. 5). Further motivation to combine be that Feldman and Ng are analogous art to the current claim are directed to automatic modeling of a cable assembly design.
As per claim 9, Feldman teaches “wherein the graphic design file comprises a three-dimensional model file of the cable assembly product.” Para. 0037, “The system (70) then presents the user with the one or more twinax cable assembly designs matching the input design data and the degree to which the one or more cable assemblies match the input design data” [wherein the graphic design file comprises a model file of the cable assembly product]. FIG. 4 shows that the completed cable assembly design as a three-dimensional model. Further see Para. 0036-0037. The examiner has interpreted presenting the user with the cable assembly designs in a three-dimensional model as wherein the graphic design file comprises a three-dimensional model file of the cable assembly product.)
As per claim 10, Feldman does not specifically teach “wherein the graphic design file comprises a two-dimensional image file of the cable assembly product.”
However, Ng teaches “wherein the graphic design file comprises a two-dimensional image file of the cable assembly product.” (Pg. 888 Sect. 5, “These graphical representation diagrams are developed using commercially available or in-house developed two-dimensional CAD schematic drafting package” and “Depending on the method used, two-dimensional drawings of the harness assemblies are either produced using drafting software or extracted directly from the three-dimensional CAD routing packages”. Further see Sect. 5. The examiner has interpreted that developing two-dimensional graphical drawing representation using the generated three-dimensional CAD routing package of the cable as wherein the graphic design file comprises a two-dimensional image file of the cable assembly product.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the graphic design file comprises a two-dimensional image file of the cable assembly product” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Ng, into that of Feldman because this modification of generating the graphic design file as a two-dimensional image for the advantageous purpose of easily determine the physical layout of the harness and cable lengths (Ng, Pg. 884 Sect. 5). Further motivation to combine be that Feldman and Ng are analogous art to the current claim are directed to automatic modeling of a cable assembly design.
Re Claim 11, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Feldman teaches “A system” and “a user device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of the user device cause the user device to receive, via a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display associated with the user device, a selection of parameters for a cable assembly product”. (Para. 0005, “The present invention is a method of electronically designing an article, including accessing an electronic article design system” [a system]. Para. 0036, “The method (58) continues by inputting design data for an article of the selected type (62). Design data is input by manually entering data through menu selections, keyboard entries, mouse clicks, voice commands, etc. or by electronically importing data from another source. The design data input includes performance results and/or characteristics of the article” [receiving a selection of parameters for the cable assembly product in an input file]. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client” [e.g., a user device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of the user device]. Further see Para. 0005, 0036, and 0041. The examiner has interpreted that design an article of a cable with an electronic article design system using design data input that is distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client as a system and a user device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of the user device cause the user device to receive, via a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display associated with the user device, a selection of parameters for a cable assembly product.)
Feldman teaches “generate, based on the selection of parameters, a character delimited input file comprising the selection of parameters”, “send, to a server device, the character delimited input file”, and “the server device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by an at least one processor of the server device”. (Para. 0036, “The method (58) continues by inputting design data for an article of the selected type (62). Design data is input by manually entering data through menu selections, keyboard entries, mouse clicks, voice commands, etc. or by electronically importing data from another source. The design data input includes performance results and/or characteristics of the article” [receiving a selection of parameters for the cable assembly product in an input file, e.g., user generates a selection of parameters]. Para. 0036, “The design data input includes performance results and/or characteristics of the article” [the selection of parameters]. Para. 0018, “Characteristics: one or more variables upon which a particular electronic design or identification depends, for example, physical characteristics of a cable assembly, such as cable length, connector types, boardmount connectors, carriers, polarizing keys, or retainers” [cable length is a selected parameter]. Para. 0034, “cable length could be made selectable in discrete steps so that each selected cable length could be matched to stored graphical attenuation performance results. Eye diagrams are an example of a still more complex performance model requiring algorithmic computations, because they require several user inputs such as data rate, signal rise time, signal amplitude and cable length. In this example, an algorithm generates a data table as shown in FIG. 7, which in turn can be charted as an eye diagram using common spreadsheet functions as shown in FIG. 8” [cable length presented in a common spreadsheet, e.g., a character delimited file comprising the selection of parameters]. Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client” [receiving, at a server device, comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by an at least one processor of the server device, and from a user client device, e.g., sending to a server device the inputs]. Further see Para. 0018, 0034, 0036 and 0041. The examiner has interpreted importing characteristics of the article such as cable length in common spreadsheet function across a communication network between a server and a client as generate, based on the selection of parameters, a character delimited input file comprising the selection of parameters, send, to a server device, the character delimited input file, and the server device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by an at least one processor of the server device.)
Re Claim 12, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Feldman teaches “wherein the computer-readable instructions of the server device” and “from the memory of the server device”. (Para. 0041, “The system employing methods of the present invention may be stored and processed locally on a single computer, or may be distributed across a communications network with components of the system stored and processed on a server and other components stored and processed on a client” [wherein the computer-readable instructions and the memory of the server device]. Further see Para. 0041. The examiner has interpreted importing characteristics of the article across a communication network between a server and a client as wherein the computer-readable instructions of the server device and from the memory of the server device.)
Re Claim 13, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3 and 12. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 and 12.
Re Claim 14, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 15, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re Claim 16, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Re Claim 17, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 17, Feldman teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in at least one computing device”. (Para. 0005, “The present invention is a method of electronically designing an article, including accessing an electronic article design system” [A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in at least one computing device]. Further see Para. 0005, 0023, 0041. The examiner has interpreted that design an article of a cable with an electronic article design system as a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in at least one computing device.)
Re Claim 18, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 2 and 12. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 and 12.
Re Claim 19, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 3 and 13. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 and 13.
Re Claim 20, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 21-22, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and, in the light to the amendments to trademarks included in the specification, are persuasive. Therefore, the objections has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 23, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the amended independent claim having the limitation of “non-transitory computer-readable medium” to direct the claims to a statutory subject matter, e.g., articles of manufacture. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application as claim features recite improvements to another technology or technical field (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 24-30).
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”. MPEP § 2106.05(a) also recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) states “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:…iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The examiner has provided the rational for the independent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. The additional elements are:
“executing, by the server device, an automation background thread”, “by the server device”, “digital model”, “generating, by the server device and based on the digital model of the cable assembly product, a graphic design file of the cable assembly product to display on the user client device”, “A system”, “a user device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of the user device”, “via a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display associated with the user device”, “the server device comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by an at least one processor of the server device” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable in at least one computing device,” which are merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements;
“receiving, at a server device and from a user client device, a selection of parameters for the cable assembly product in a character delimited input file, wherein the selection of parameters indicates: a computer aided design (CAD) template assembly to be used for generation of the graphical rendering of the cable assembly product; connector family selections corresponding to connectors of the cable assembly product; parameters associated with the connectors of the cable assembly product; and a cable style selection for the cable assembly product”, “accesses a CAD template assembly corresponding to a CAD template part file associated with the CAD template indicated by the selection of parameters”, and “send, to a server device, the character delimited input file” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data outputting activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application;
“sending, by the server device to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility, the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product”, while the examiner would agree is not a mental process, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data outputting activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
The claimed improvement, as noted by the applicant to be automating a process, has been found by the courts to have indicated to not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality, and thus the claims are merely using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea and include field of use and insignificant extra-solution activities, which are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Therefore, there are no additional element limitations in the independent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology as listed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the examiner has also provided the rational for the dependent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. With the exception of the additional element limitations in the dependent claims which are merely using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, implementing the field of use/technological environment, and insignificant extra-solution activities, there are no additional limitations in the dependent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology or through the use of meaningful limitations and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite mental processes, and the limitations that merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, insignificant extra-solution activities, or implement the field of use/technological environment.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach each and every limitation in the amend claims 1 because cited references fail to teach “sending, by the server device to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility, the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product” and there is no motivation to combine (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 30-34).
MPEP § 2143.03 states that “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.” MPEP § 2145(IV) recites “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” and “Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so.”
As similarly mapped in the previous Office Action in claim 8 and included in the amendment above, Ng discloses “sending, by the server device to a computing device associated with a manufacturing facility, the graphic design file for assembly and shipping of the cable assembly product” as using the cable assembly designed in a CAD system to generate part lists and drawings for manufacture and assembly of the cable harness to be installed into a prototype by an external specialist supplier. Ng discloses that a harness comprises bundle of cables and cable assemblies having end connectors that satisfy pin-to-pin connectors. Thus, the cable harness as described is a plurality of cable assembles combined in to a harness, e.g., a cable assembly product. Regardless, a wiring harness is not a change in principle operation to a single cable since both have the same function of being a medium for delivering electrical current or data signals between two or more points by a connector and wires. Further, the cable designs, including the wiring, parts lists and two-dimensional drawings, e.g., the graphic design file, are used for the manufacture and assembly of prototype harnesses by an external specialist supplier after the design in CAD software, i.e., sending to a manufacturing facility. Additionally, the examiner provide the motivation to combine Ng into Feldman as also seen above. The motivation includes creating a physical instant of the cable assembly design (Ng, Pg. 884 Sect. 5). Further motivation to combine be that Feldman and Ng are analogous art to the current claim are directed to automatic modeling of a cable assembly design. Additional emphasis and citations to further support the rejection have been added to this mapping in the rejection above to the amended limitation.
Therefore, all of the limitations of the amended claim 1 is disclosed in Feldman or Ng, and the combination of these references renders the claimed invention obvious. Additionally, there is motivation to combine Ng into that of Feldman, and the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Feldman in view of Ng is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lindfors, Niklas, Asko Pesonen, Carolin Franck, Ville Lähteinen, and Petri Kuosmanen. "Cabling Design Utilizing 3D CAD in Product Development of an Electric Device." In DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm, pp. 29-30. 2003 teaches a method design cable assembly products based on parameters to create drawings in 3D CAD software and sending the drawings to a manufacture to manufacture the cable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188