DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 6/6/2022. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims1-20, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 claim a method, an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of a process, machine and article of manufacture.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A method of scattering geometric components in a three-dimensional space in a Computer- Aided Design (CAD) environment, the method comprising:
determining geometric components needed for assembling a CAD model of a product (mental process –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
determining a scatter plane for scattering the geometric components in the three- dimensional space in the CAD environment (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
computing a two-dimensional projection of the geometric components (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
determining a position of each of the geometric components based on the two-dimensional projection of the geometric components (mental process –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
placing each of the geometric components in the scatter plane based on the positions of the geometric components, respectively (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves determining components, determining a scatter plane computing a projection, determining a position and placing components in a scatter plane. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing the geometric components. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “Computer- Aided Design (CAD) environment” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 8 and 15 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is
reached for the dependent claims.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are further directed towards determining steps and computing steps which are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing the geometric components. Thus, limitations e also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20100007676 A1 (“Kumar”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Kumar teaches:
A method of scattering geometric components in a three-dimensional space in a Computer- Aided Design (CAD) environment (Kumar: Abstract), the method comprising:
determining geometric components needed for assembling a CAD model of a product (Kumar: paras [0005], [0021-0022], para [0023], “The user intends to add components, i.e., place identical instances of the geometric objects 205, into the windowed environment 200 to create an assembly. FIGS. 4a and 4b illustrate a windowed environment displaying a plurality of parts”);
determining a scatter plane for scattering the geometric components in the three- dimensional space in the CAD environment (Kumar: para [0021, [0025], “The placement of part is accomplished by placing all the instances of selected parts in a square matrix on a work view plane (Step 120). For example, if there are 100 parts selected to add, those parts would be scattered on a plane with 10 rows, each row with 10 components. This ensures that the parts do not overlap with each other. A distance between two consecutive parts was kept to 1.2 times the part with largest bounding box. The plane on which components were scattered was determined based upon the work view plane, according to Table 1:”, para [0026], “Position of all the existing parts was determined to choose the scatter center. For example, to scatter parts in XY plane the z-coordinate position of scatter center was determined based upon what is the farthest placed part in positive z-direction. The scatter center's z-coordinate was set at offset of 1.2 times the largest bounding box of the parts to be placed from the farthest placed part in positive z-direction. Also whether the z coordinate of the scatter center is taken in positive z-direction or negative was based upon view plane”);
computing a two-dimensional projection of the geometric components (Kumar: para [0023], “the cube with dihedral symmetry in 3D would appear as a rectangle 405 in two dimensions is determined to have the largest volume and is placed closest to the starting point 400. In decreasing volume is as a square 410, a triangle 415, and then a circle 420, which are the 2D representations of a cube, a polyhedron with a triangle base, and a sphere, respectively”);
determining a position of each of the geometric components based on the two-dimensional projection of the geometric components (Kumar: [0025], “The placement of part is accomplished by placing all the instances of selected parts in a square matrix on a work view plane (Step 120). For example, if there are 100 parts selected to add, those parts would be scattered on a plane with 10 rows, each row with 10 components. This ensures that the parts do not overlap with each other. A distance between two consecutive parts was kept to 1.2 times the part with largest bounding box. The plane on which components were scattered was determined based upon the work view plane, according to Table 1”); and
placing each of the geometric components in the scatter plane based on the positions of the geometric components, respectively (Kumar: para [0025], “The placement of part is accomplished by placing all the instances of selected parts in a square matrix on a work view plane (Step 120). For example, if there are 100 parts selected to add, those parts would be scattered on a plane with 10 rows, each row with 10 components. This ensures that the parts do not overlap with each other. A distance between two consecutive parts was kept to 1.2 times the part with largest bounding box. The plane on which components were scattered was determined based upon the work view plane, according to Table 1”; para [0026], “Position of all the existing parts was determined to choose the scatter center. For example, to scatter parts in XY plane the z-coordinate position of scatter center was determined based upon what is the farthest placed part in positive z-direction. The scatter center's z-coordinate was set at offset of 1.2 times the largest bounding box of the parts to be placed from the farthest placed part in positive z-direction. Also whether the z coordinate of the scatter center is taken in positive z-direction or negative was based upon view plane”).
Regarding claim 6 and 13, Kumar teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein a first geometric component of the geometric components is placed at an origin of the scatter plane (Kumar: [0026], “Position of all the existing parts was determined to choose the scatter center. For example, to scatter parts in XY plane the z-coordinate position of scatter center was determined based upon what is the farthest placed part in positive z-direction. The scatter center's z-coordinate was set at offset of 1.2 times the largest bounding box of the parts to be placed from the farthest placed part in positive z-direction. Also whether the z coordinate of the scatter center is taken in positive z-direction or negative was based upon view plane”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 16-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome.
The independent claims will be in condition for allowance when the allowable dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims, in addition to overcoming the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art Kumar teaches a method for component scattering in a three-dimensional space in a CAD environment. However, this reference and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claims 2, 9, 16)
“determining a position of a view point associated with the CAD model;
determining a position of a viewing plane based on a current view of the CAD model; and
determining a reference plane parallel to the viewing plane and passing through the determined view point”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189