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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2025, 07/18/2024, 08/01/2023, and 08/15/2022 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, NPL 6 of the information disclosure statement filed 08/01/2023 was not considered because there is no copy of that portion which caused it to be listed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 6, it recites the limitation “a virtual index covering part of the first component” which is unclear what the limitation refers. In particular what is the the metes and bounds of “virtual index covering part”, and how is it defined?
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-18 recite an apparatus comprising a processor while the claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium and therefore are a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim 20 recites steps or acts including playing determination results; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claims 1 and 19-20 recite:
extract a component from a three-dimensional model that includes a combination of a plurality of components (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing a component); and
display determination results, in a display form predetermined in the determination results (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting), the determination results being obtained by determining whether a component other than the extracted component interferes with a virtual model, generated on the three-dimensional model, in a relationship between the virtual model and the extracted component (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “design support apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:” (Claim 1) and “non-transitory computer readable medium storing program causing a computer to execute a process” (Claim 19) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “computer” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Further the additional elements of “gear” and “shaft” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1 and 19-20 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “display determination results, in a display form predetermined in the determination results (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting)”
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements 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 of “design support apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:” (Claim 1) and “non-transitory computer readable medium storing program causing a computer to execute a process” (Claim 19) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The additional elements of “gear” and “shaft” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further as discussed above Claims 1 and 19-20 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. 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) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. 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): “display determination results, in a display form predetermined in the determination results (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting)”.
Further dependent claims 2-18 recite:
2. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display, in different display forms (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting), a first component that the determination results have determined as interfering with the virtual model and a second component that the determination results have not determined as interfering with the virtual model (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
3. The design support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors as the different display forms (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting), the first component determined as interfering with the virtual model and the second component not determined as interfering with the virtual model (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
4. The design support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors as the different display forms (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting), the extracted component having a predetermined relationship with the virtual model that the determination results have determined as being interfered with the first component and the second component that the determination results have not determined as interfering with the virtual model (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
5. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting), the virtual model determined as being interfered with a first component and a second component not determined to interfere with the virtual model (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
6. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, if the virtual model is determined as being interfered with a first component, generate, on the three-dimensional model, a virtual index covering part of the first component interfering with the virtual model (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
7. The design support apparatus according claim 1, wherein the extracted component is a gear (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the gear interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
8. The design support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the extracted component is a gear (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the gear interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
9. The design support apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the extracted component is a gear (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the gear interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
10. The design support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the extracted component is a gear (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the gear interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
11. The design support apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the extracted component is a gear (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the gear interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
12. The design support apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the extracted component is a gear (insignificant extra-solution activity – field of use), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the gear interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
13. The design support apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to set a side of the virtual model free from being interfered with to be aligned with a direction of assembly of the gear (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
14. The design support apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to: place in the shaft hole of the gear the virtual model smaller than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear by a predetermined size (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and if the virtual model is moved from the gear toward an upstream side in the direction of assembly by a predetermined distance, determine whether a component within the shaft hole interferes with the virtual model (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
15. The design support apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to place the virtual model having a predetermined size in the direction of assembly to determine whether another component interferes with the virtual model (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
16. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, if faces of a first component determined as interfering with the virtual model are acquired and an angle made by the faces is smaller than a predetermined angle, display the first component having the angle smaller than the predetermined angle in a display form different from a display form of a second component not determined as interfering with the virtual model (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
17. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change a color of the extracted component if no other component is determined as interfering with one of an upper end and a lower end of the extracted component in a vertical direction in a predetermined process that assembles the components (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
18. The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: extract a similar component within a predetermined range of similarity with respect to the extracted component (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and change a color of the similar component (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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.
5. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 -13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”).
As per Claim 1 and 19-20, Zhang et al. discloses a design support apparatus/ non-transitory computer readable medium storing program /method (Fig. 5) comprising: a processor (Fig. 21, “Fig. 21 shows the implementation interface… All cases were carried out on a desktop with 8-GB memory and 2.83-GHz Intel Core2 CPU.” on the right column of Pg 1198 section 8.2) configured to:
extract a component from a three-dimensional model that includes a combination of a plurality of components (“polygon mesh data of the assembly as an input. It cycles the parts of the target assembly and carries out the interference detection between every two parts in w” on the left column of Pg 1191; Fig. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
145
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and
display determination results, in a display form predetermined in the determination results (Fig. 5, 17 &18
PNG
media_image2.png
180
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis. These facets mostly distribute on the contacting curve surfaces between parts.” On the right column of Pg 1198), the determination results being obtained by determining whether a component other than the extracted component interferes (Fig. 5, 17 &18 “this pair of parts are rejected for the next step. Moreover, hard interference between parts can be directly determined by the COAABBs method,… (1) evaluating the interference quantity between parts with static interference and (2) determining whether the positive or negative axis direction (w+ or w−) in which two parts interfere and finally set the relevant matrix elements” on Pg 1191; Fig. 5, & 17-18
PNG
media_image3.png
295
313
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) with a virtual model, generated on the three-dimensional model, in a relationship between the virtual model and the extracted component (“the cruciformly overlapped axis align bounding boxes (COAABBs) method can directly determine collisions caused by translating objects.” on the left column of Pg 1188; “A bounding volume is a simple geometry enclosing the object. A pair of objects are impossible to collide if their bounding volumes do not intersect.” on the left column of Pg 1189; Fig. 5
PNG
media_image3.png
295
313
media_image3.png
Greyscale
: Examiner Note – “bounding box” corresponds to “a virtual model” as the virtual model is interpreted to be a bounding volume around the rotary shaft based on the specification of instant invention (Fig. 5 and the description)).
As per Claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to display, in different display forms, a first component that the determination results have determined as interfering with the virtual model and a second component that the determination results have not determined as interfering with the virtual model (Fig. 18 “The overlapped facets between minor interfered parts in x-axis”; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis. These facets mostly distribute on the contacting curve surfaces between parts.” On the right column of Pg 1198: Examiner Note – Fig. 18 illustrates a gear box and the shaft hole-lifted parts, and the interfering parts are highlighted in green and bule where the rest are in white).
As per Claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors as the different display forms, the first component determined as interfering with the virtual model and the second component not determined as interfering with the virtual model (Fig. 18 “The overlapped facets between minor interfered parts in x-axis”; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis.” On the right column of Pg 1198: Examiner Note – Fig. 18 illustrates a gear box and the shaft hole-lifted parts, and the interfering parts are highlighted in green and bule where the rest are in white).
As per Claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors as the different display forms, the extracted component having a predetermined relationship with the virtual model that the determination results have determined as being interfered with the first component and the second component that the determination results have not determined as interfering with the virtual model (Fig. 18 “The overlapped facets between minor interfered parts in x-axis”; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis.” On the right column of Pg 1198: Examiner Note – Fig. 18 illustrates a gear box and the shaft hole-lifted parts, and the interfering parts are highlighted in green and bule where the rest are in white. Every combination of two parts among the components of Fig. 18 is treated separately, i. e. extracted, and undergoes the overlap and intersection test according to the algorithm of Fig. 5).
As per Claim 6, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to, if the virtual model is determined as being interfered with a first component, generate, on the three-dimensional model, a virtual index covering part of the first component interfering with the virtual model (Fig. 2 & 15 (d) “Primitive points of overlapped region vertexes”).
As per Claim 7-10 and 12, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the extracted component is a gear (Fig. 16 & 18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: P2 of Fig. 16), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the gear interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (Fig. 16-18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: Examiner Note – There is an interference between the gear (P2 of Fig. 16) and the shaft (P11 of Fig. 16) visible in Fig. 17(a) (value of 2 on the row of P2 intersected with the column of P11). Fig. 3, a value of 2 corresponds to hard interference between parts, i.e. penetration, not just a minor contact interference. For such a hard interference between shaft and gear to exist, the shaft must be larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear. As the virtual model, i.e. bounding box, is used for determining interference, and as it encloses the shaft, it is also larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole.).
As per Claim 13, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to set a side of the virtual model free from being interfered with to be aligned with a direction of assembly of the gear (Fig. 11 (d) “B(M0) and B(M1) do not intersect”, “AABBs of two models do not intersect in the assembly” on the left column of Pg 1195).
As per Claim 15, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to place the virtual model having a predetermined size in the direction of assembly to determine whether another component interferes with the virtual model (Fig. 11 (d), left column of Pg 1195
PNG
media_image4.png
373
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 5 and 11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”) as applied to claim1-4, 6-10, 12 -13, 15, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Rossignac et al. (“Interactive Inspection of Solids: Cross-sections and Interferences”).
As per Claim 5, Zhang et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors, the virtual model determined as being interfered with a first component and a second component not determined to interfere with the virtual model.
Rossignac et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors, the virtual model determined as being interfered with a first component and a second component not determined to interfere with the virtual model (Fig. 9-10).
Zhang et al. and Rossignac et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for interference checking of assembly models.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Rossignac et al. into Zhang et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning. In particular, Rossignac et al. teaches the interference visualization technique for displaying interference parts enhanced by highlighting in red with 3D bounding box around the interference region (Fig. 9-10) to provide a system with extended graphic functions that reduces the cost of correcting design errors, assemblies of mechanical parts are modeled and verified electronically before the designs are sent to manufacturing (Abstract).
As per Claim 11, Zhang et al. teaches wherein the extracted component is a gear (Fig. 16 & 18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: P2 of Fig. 16), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the gear interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (Fig. 16-18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: Examiner Note – There is an interference between the gear (P2 of Fig. 16) and the shaft (P11 of Fig. 16) visible in Fig. 17(a) (value of 2 on the row of P2 intersected with the column of P11). Fig. 3, a value of 2 corresponds to hard interference between parts, i.e. penetration, not just a minor contact interference. For such a hard interference between shaft and gear to exist, the shaft must be larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear. As the virtual model, i.e. bounding box, is used for determining interference, and as it encloses the shaft, it is also larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole.).
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”), in view of Korbi et al. (“A CAD model for the tolerancing of mechanical assemblies considering non-rigid joints between parts with defects”), and further in view of Taguchi et al. (US 20130100153 A1).
Zhang et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 -13, 15, and 19-20 above.
As per Claim 14, Zhang et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to: place in the shaft hole of the gear the virtual model smaller than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear by a predetermined size; and if the virtual model is moved from the gear toward an upstream side in the direction of assembly by a predetermined distance, determine whether a component within the shaft hole interferes with the virtual model.
Korbi et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to: place in the shaft hole of the gear the virtual model smaller than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear by a predetermined size (Figure 11 (a) “realistic axis L’h is generated based on the feature operation concept”).
Taguchi et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to: if the virtual model is moved from the gear toward an upstream side in the direction of assembly by a predetermined distance, determine whether a component within the shaft hole interferes with the virtual model ([0122] –[0126], Fig. 16A-B).
Zhang et al., Korbi et al. and Taguchi et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for assembly modeling.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Korbi et al. and Taguchi et al. into Zhang et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to provide an improved method of CAD assemblies considering realistic joints between parts with defects. (Korbi et al.: Abstract) and to provide an improved system with the determination accuracy of the assembly/disassembly direction (Taguchi et al.: [0172]).
8. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”) as applied to claim 1-4, 6-10, 12 -13, 15, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (“Hierarchical exploded view generation based on recursive assembly sequence planning”).
As per Claim 16, Zhang et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to, if faces of a first component determined as interfering with the virtual model are acquired and an angle made by the faces is smaller than a predetermined angle, display the first component having the angle smaller than the predetermined angle in a display form different from a display form of a second component not determined as interfering with the virtual model.
Yu et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to, if faces of a first component determined as interfering with the virtual model are acquired and an angle made by the faces is smaller than a predetermined angle, display the first component having the angle smaller than the predetermined angle in a display form different from a display form of a second component not determined as interfering with the virtual model (section 2.3 “The parts that may interfere the active part in Listp (such as p1 in Fig. 6) still need precise detection… search for up to N (or less than N) planar feature faces of pi, whose normal direction makes an angle of less than 60°… Using the previous example in Fig. 6, through the sweeping method and the extruding bounding face method, only p5 and p1 are left in Listp to be further detected. Now the extruding feature face method can be applied to p4, shown as Fig. 7. The part p4 has seven planar faces and two curved faces, among which only the planar face F1 meets the angle demand.”).
Zhang et al. and Yu et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for interference checking of assembly models.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Yu et al. into Zhang et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to provide a system which restricst the angle and number of the feature faces in order to avoid forming too many invalid or redundant extrusion features which will reduce the efficiency of analysis (Yu et al.: section 2.3).
As per Claim 17, Zhang et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to change a color of the extracted component if no other component is determined as interfering with one of an upper end and a lower end of the extracted component … (Fig. 18 “The overlapped facets between minor interfered parts in x-axis”; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis.” On the right column of Pg 1198: Examiner Note – Fig. 18 illustrates a gear box and the shaft hole-lifted parts, and the interfering parts are highlighted in green and bule where the rest are in white).
Zhang et al. fails to teach explicitly in a vertical direction in a predetermined process that assembles the components.
Yu et al. teaches in a vertical direction in a predetermined process that assembles the components (Fig. 11 “A rocker assembly”).
9. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”) as applied to claim 1-4, 6-10, 12 -13, 15, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Boussuge et al. (“APPLICATION OF TENSOR FACTORISATION TO ANALYSE SIMILARITIES IN CAD ASSEMBLY MODELS”).
As per Claim 18, Zhang et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to: extract a similar component within a predetermined range of similarity with respect to the extracted component; and change a color of the similar component.
Boussuge et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
extract a similar component within a predetermined range of similarity with respect to the extracted component (Figure 3-4, section 4-5); and
change a color of the similar component (Figure 3-4: similar entities to solid 78 is in red color).
Zhang et al. and Boussuge et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for interference checking of assembly models.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Boussuge et al. into Zhang et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to provide a system which demonstrating how to efficiently look for similarity in the CAD models therefore to reduce the
currently tedious and highly manual tasks when extracting and preparing simulation analysis models from a large assembly model (Boussuge et al.: left column of Pg 2).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guan et al. (“Tooth contact analysis of crown gear coupling with misalignment”)
Lee et al. ("3-axis reaction wheel system for cubesats.").
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 at (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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188