DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 5/13/2026. Claims 1-21 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 .
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims have been amended to recite “displaying, by a display, the geometric components placed in the scatter plane” and “manufacturing the product based on the assembled CAD model”.
Displaying amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional element of "manufacturing the product" only amounts to "apply it" as it merely uses the abstract idea in the context of CAD modeling, and fails to provide any restrictions on how the manufacturing is accomplished. These limitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention to a patentable invention because the recited components are recited at a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The rejection has been updated to reflect the amended claim language.
Response to Arguments Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that “Kumar discloses determining a position of each of the parts based on a predetermined matrix and a two-dimensional projection of a single part (e.g., a part with a largest bounding box). Kumar does not, however, teach or disclose determining a position of each of the parts based on a two-dimensional projection of each of the parts.”
However, paragraph [0025] of Kumar states, “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.”
It is unknown what it would mean to be “based on” the projections. If it is ensured that parts do not overlap with each other and that the distance between the parts is 1.2 times the part, then the positioning is determined “based on” the two dimensional projection of components.
The rejection is updated to reflect the amended claim language.
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 1-21 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 claims 1-21, 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); and
displaying, by a display, the geometric components placed in the scatter plane.
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 and insignificant extra-solution activity. 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)) and “displaying, by a display (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), the geometric components placed in the scatter plane” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 and insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “displaying, by a display, the geometric components placed in the scatter plane” is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "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:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
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 21 is further directed towards manufacturing the product which (adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of "manufacturing the product" only amounts to "apply it" as it merely uses the abstract idea in the context of CAD modeling, and fails to provide any restrictions on how the deployment is accomplished. These limitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention to a patentable invention because the recited components are recited at a high level. of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f):
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743 17.
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.
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”);
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”); and
displaying, by a display, the geometric components placed in the scatter plane (Kumar: para [0013], “FIGS. 4a and 4b illustrate a windowed environment displaying a plurality of parts”).
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”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100007676 A1 (“Kumar”) in view of US 20090259442 A1 (“Gandikota”).
Regarding claim 21, Kumar teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
assembling the CAD model based on the determined geometric components (Kumar: 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”);
Kumar does not teach but Gandikota does teach
manufacturing the product based on the assembled CAD model (Gandikota: para [0021], “the solid model in its final design form is further designed for physical manufacture in a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) application 215 such as NX CAM or CAM Express both offered by Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. By using the CAM application 215, a CAM user will model how numerical control programs, molds, tools and dies manufacture a physical product 230”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kumar (directed to component scattering in a CAD model) and Gandikota (directed to manufacturing the product) and arrived at component scattering in a CAD model and manufacturing the product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to produce the physical product 230 according to the original design specifications and subsequent engineering modifications” (Gandikota: para [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 16-21 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.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights