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
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 11/10/2022 and 12/21/202.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (organizing human activity), without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald et al US 20130282160 A1 (“FIT“) in view of Mifsud US 20070260345 A1 (“MIF“)
Priority
The application claims priority to the PCT/NL2021/050356 filed on 06/04/2021, which claims priority on earlier national application in KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS Application number NL2025761 filed 06/04/2020. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. The number in the parenthesis, next to a claim number, is the number of the parent claim. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group, typically the one with most limitations. An additional analysis is performed if any other claim in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, organizing human activity) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-20 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 1-11 and 19,20 directed to a method), machine (claims 12-18 directed to an assembly).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM
(S2A1)
Claim 1 recites a method for fitting parts including generation of workflow guidance for fitting and performing the fitting activity by a human according to guidance with the flow:
3D data model is interpreted and from it fitting information is generated (this step is a done in software but describes a process that could be done in the mind by a human with pen and paper, so it is also a mental process). The type of information includes lists of parts, profiles with logistical order or being supplied, welding information and graphical information.
The fitting information is provided to the fitter and the fitter performs a sequence of fitting steps: obtaining lists with parts and profiles, orients and positions the part, tack-weld the parts to profile, and repeats fitting steps until all parts have been connected to the profile
Regarding “3D data interpretation and from it generating fitting information”, this describes a process that could be done in the mind by a human with pen and paper. Regarding the claim element “software application”, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
To this one adds the part of the claim in which fitting information is provided to the fitter and the fitter performs a sequence of fitting steps. This fits within Organizing Human Activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection II) ) category of abstract ideas.
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the claim limitations which when considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis (as per the MPEP 2106.04 II. B guidance), the claim recites a process aimed at: “preparing and executing a workflow guidance for a fitter”.
Accordingly, claims 1 recites an abstract idea.
(S2A2)
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or to a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements “by a CAD program,” “computer system” and “software application” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer” (used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The modifiers: “wherein the graphical information includes at least one of: various views of a profile in combination with a part to be connected with the profile; information on how to position a part relative to a profile; and information with respect to distances of the part relative to reference points, the reference points including at least one of an end face of the profile, holes in the profile or markings on the profile, so as to determine a precise position of the respective part on the respective profile relative to the reference points” as applied to the “graphical information” are nothing more than general links to the computing environment, which, as noted, amounts to instructions to “apply it,” or nothing more than descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of claim elements (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The modifiers do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea: “preparing and executing a workflow guidance for a fitter”. Therefore, those modifiers do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
(S2B)
Claims 1 does not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and/or a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h).
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea -“preparing and executing a workflow guidance for a fitter” could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 12 is directed to an assembly for use with method 1, with a computer, a screen and which executes the software application for generating the fitting information, the software with substantially similar limitations to those in claim 1. The claim is directed to the generation of information for fitting, which is analyzed in claim 1 in relation to the similar group of limitations, respectively
3D data model is interpreted and from it fitting information is generated (this step is a done in software but describes a process that could be done in the mind by a human with pen and paper, so it is also a mental process). The type of information includes lists of parts, profiles with logistical order or being supplied, welding information and graphical information.
The claim thus recites an assembly reciting “3D data interpretation and from it generating fitting information”, which describes a process that could be done in the mind by a human with pen and paper. Regarding the claim element “software application”, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claims 12 does not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic computing elements and recite Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and/or a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h). When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea -“3D data interpretation and from it generating fitting information” could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 2 further refines independent claim 1 limiting step d) performed by the fitter. More specifically, it refines the step d) performed by the fitter, part of the Organizing Human Activity abstract idea of preparing and executing a workflow guidance for a fitter, with elements reciting preparation of final welds according to specific welding information. Thus, the claim continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the independent claim. There are no added additional elements to provide any specific improvements and to practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. The analysis remains as for the parent claim, with nothing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the claim is thus directed to a judicial exception. There are no additional elements which considered individually or in combination to provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim 2 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 further refines the limiting step e), which is a step part of the recited abstract idea in the independent claim. More specifically it refines the step e) in the Organizing Human Activity abstract idea, with, before a restart at step a) a step e1) preparing final welds for all the parts which have been tack-welded onto the respective profile in accordance with the specific welding parameter information. The claim continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the independent claim. The analysis remains as for the independent claim, with no additional elements to integrate into a practical application or to provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim 3 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 further refines a step of the recited abstract idea (Organizing Human Activity) in the independent claim. More specifically it refines the step a2) wherein step a2) includes before ending the method the step 3) with preparing final welds for all the parts which have been tack-welded onto the respective profile in accordance with the specific welding parameter information.
The claim continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the independent claim. The analysis remains as for the parent claim, with no additional elements to integrate into a practical application or to provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim 3 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 5(1) and 13(12) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claims. More specifically a step refined recites pre-collecting the parts and placing in the supply order in accordance to a list. Claim 5 further recites performing step b) by taking a subsequent or upper part of the supply order.
Claims 6(1) and 14(12) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claims. More specifically a step refined recites collecting the profiles on a transport system in a supply order which is in accordance with the digital or physical list. Claim 6 further recites performing step a) by subsequently transporting the profiles to the fitter with the transport system.
Claims 7(1) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claims. More specifically wherein the fitting information also includes information relating to the dimensions of the parts relative to the reference points, and wherein the fitter, after executing step b) and before executing step c) checks whether the part to be tack-welded to the profile indeed fulfills the dimensional requirements relative to the reference points.
Claims 8(1) and 15(12) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claims. More specifically fitting information includes digital or physical schedule showing the work order in which the various profiles and parts have to be processed. Claim 8 further recites the method includes processing the various profiles and parts in accordance with the work order shown on the digital or physical schedule.
Claims 9(8) and 16(12) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claims. More specifically fitting information includes status information which allows for live monitoring of the status of the fitting process of the respective mark or phase.
Claims 10(1) and 17(12) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claims. More specifically it recites automatically uploading the specific welding parameter information for each part which has to be welded to a respective profile into the welding apparatus. Claim 10 further recites a welding apparatus in which specific welding parameters are uploaded.
Claims 11(1) and 18(17) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claims. More specifically the limitation is to trigger the automatically uploading of the specific welding parameter information for a specific weld when a fitter taps on the screen at the position where that weld is shown on the screen.
Claims 19(2) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claim. More specifically it includes the combined limitations of claims 2 and 5, analyzed above, both merely refining the abstract idea.
Claims 20(3) further refine steps of the recited abstract idea in the respective parent claim. More specifically it includes the combined limitations of claims 3 and 5, analyzed above, both merely refining the abstract idea.
These claims continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the independent claim from which they depend. The analysis is similar to that done for the parent claim, with no additional elements to integrate into a practical application or to provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception (all improvements are to the judicial exception). In each respective case, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 5-11, 13-20 are found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald et al US 20130282160 A1 (“FIT“) in view of Mifsud US 20070260345 A1 (“MIF“)
Regarding Claims 1, 12 FIT discloses a
method for assisting a fitter in fitting parts to profiles for manufacturing construction elements of a steel construction, the parts consisting of plates, profiles or bolts, wherein the method comprises { [0001] 'The present invention relates to a method for fabricating finished articles from structural members. [0003] Structural members are commonly used in the building industry. Steel fabrication involves welding and cutting steel members, such as U-Beams, according detailed drawings.}
providing a computer system in which a 30-model of the steel construction is created by means of a CAD-program { [0099] With reference to FIG. 3, an information source, in the form of a database of 3D structure models 120 is provided, which comprises a third party architectural drawing. The architectural drawing has been created by a designer 126 using a 3.sup.rd party structural design system 24 comprising a structural steel CAD package running on a suitable computer system.; 4. A method according to claim 4 including operating the computer to generate a fabrication shop drawing electronic file of each article from the digital information source for a human operator to refer to.}
providing a software application for generating fitting information, wherein the software application interprets 30-model data of the 30-model and generates for at least one mark or phase of the steel construction from the 30-model data at least the following fitting information: { [0097] this method involves extracting information from the three dimensional architectural drawing and generating a list of tasks}
specific welding parameter information for each part which has to be welded to a respective profile, and {[0117] 'It is at this stage that the attachment type and properties are stored as weld tasks. The weld tasks comprise information that can be used to operate the lronman to weld a secondary member, i.e. a plate, to the primary member. This information includes the length and type of the weld
PNG
media_image1.png
480
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
}
graphical information which is presented on a screen which is in the working environment of the fitter, wherein the graphical information includes at least one of: various views of a profile in combination with a part to be connected with the profile; information on how to position a part relative to a profile; and information with respect to distances of the part relative to reference points, the reference points including at least one of an end face of the profile, holes in the profile or markings on the profile, so as to determine a precise position of the respective part on the respective profile relative to the reference points; { [Fig. 3] LCD touch panel 136;
PNG
media_image2.png
192
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0005] In order to transform a U-Beam to produce the article 102, a skilled tradesman must work from the shop drawings, which include dimensions indicating the positions and dimensions of the various features; [0017] Preferably the method includes operating the computer to generate a fabrication shop drawing electronic file of each article from the digital information source for a human operator to refer to. [0156] The screen includes a drawing of the plate and a shop drawing showing the plate positioned where it is to be welded to the member.
wherein the fitting information is provided to the fitter and wherein the fitter performs the following method steps for the at least one mark or phase of the steel construction for which the profiles have to be fitted by the fitter: { [0135] The member's parameters are then loaded and the list of processing tasks for the selected article is also loaded. The parameters and processing tasks are retrieved from the previously created databases; [0130] 'a DXF (i.e. drawing exchange format) file is produced of the outer polygon plate shape, marking layer and holes outlines. This drawing provides a visual representation of the plate that can be displayed during its attachment to the primary member so that an operator can check that the correct plate is being used and being attached.}
a) obtain the digital or physical list of profiles generated by the software application for the respective mark or phase and determine whether a next upcoming profile is available for processing, and a1) if available, taking a next upcoming profile from the list for processing by the fitter and proceed at step b); a2) if not available, end the method; b) obtain the digital or physical list of parts generated by the software application for the respective mark or phase and present a next upcoming part from the list to the fitter; { [0135] The member's parameters are then loaded and the list of processing tasks for the selected article is also loaded; [0136] ''The screen that is displayed is shown in FIG. 13 and includes a shop drawing of the member profile and the article elevations. This assists the human operator in ensuring that the correct type of member is ready for loading into the lronman vises''. Once the member has been correctly identified the human operator confirms by clicking on the ''Done'' button in the screen; [0156] a screen as shown in FIG. 29 is displayed to prompt the operator to check that the correct plate is available on the shelf. The screen includes a drawing of the plate and a shop drawing showing the plate positioned where it is to be welded to the member.
c) orient and position the part in the correct orientation and position relative to the reference points of the profile using the graphical information which is presented on the screen which is in the working environment of the fitter; and {[0156-0157] The screen includes a drawing of the plate and a shop drawing showing the plate positioned where it is to be welded to the member. Once the operator has confirmed that the correct plate is indeed ready for collection Gantry 2 (i.e. item 21 of FIG. 2A) is moved to position adjacent the cassette where its laser tool scans to check the plates material's thickness, dimensions and hole centres''; [0159] Drive command is called to move Gantry 2, thereby moving the plate to be welded, to the placement location on the member for welding'}
d) tack-weld the respective part to the respective profile; {[0159] While the electromagnet of Gantry 2 holds the plate in position a tack weld is performed by the welding tool of Gantry 3'}
e) determine whether all parts for the respective profile have been connected to the profile and restart at step b) if the determination is ''no'' and restart at step a) if the determination is 'yes''. {[0097] ''generating a list of tasks. The tasks are for the lronman to perform upon one of a number of types of primary member, to fabricate the articles defined in the drawing'' and [0105] ''a list of tasks for the lronman to carry out in order to fabricate the articles that are described in the 3D model'' The execution of the above branch is implicit from the disclosed flow.
FIT further teaches the generation of task list as well as about providing information for construction/assembly and welding, including “[0122] Extract and Process Information for Each Primary Member in Model,;[Fig. 5]; [0124] Extracting a member type, i.e. one of the types discussed above; [Fig. 6], [0109-0116]). [0122] …a file derived from an information source in the form of database 122, containing all of the information describing the building that is the subject of the model” In addition to the database. A list of parts could be, in BRI, interpreted as a database.
FIT does not explicitly teach, however MIF teaches:
a digital or physical list of parts which provides the logistical order in which the parts are supplied to the fitter; a digital or physical list of profiles which provides the logistical order in which profiles are supplied to the fitter, {[0039] In one embodiment, the method can further include the step of generating, in response to the structural specifications, a parts list for the prefabricated panels. The method can also further include the steps of manufacturing the prefabricated panels in accordance with the structural specifications and collecting the prefabricated panels and other parts for deliv [0039] In one embodiment, the method can further include the step of generating, in response to the structural specifications, a parts list for the prefabricated panels. The method can also further include the steps of manufacturing the prefabricated panels in accordance with the structural specifications and collecting the prefabricated panels and other parts for delivery. The collecting step can include organizing the panels in a specific order in accordance with the structural specifications to facilitate the ease and speed of assembly upon delivery to a construction site.ery. The collecting step can include organizing the panels in a specific order in accordance with the structural specifications to facilitate the ease and speed of assembly upon delivery to a construction site.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of FIT with MIF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of faster way to look separately at specific data.
Both FIT and MIF are in the same art, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by FIT and MIF would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over FIT in view of MIF.
Regarding claim 2 FIT, MIFteach the limitations of claim 1. FIT further teaches
wherein step d) includes: d1) prepare final welds for the part which has been tack-welded onto the respective profile in accordance with the specific welding parameter information determined by the software application. { [0129] It is at this stage that the attachment type and properties are stored as weld tasks. The weld tasks comprise information that can be used to operate the Ironman to weld a secondary member, i.e. a plate, to the primary member. This information includes the length and type of the weld. [0156] Diagram 312 (FIGS. 23A, 23B) sets out the procedure for performing weld tasks. [0158] If the information from the scan does not coincide with the plate information for the current task then an error plate message is displayed as shown in FIG. 30. [0159] in position a tack weld is performed by the welding tool of Gantry 3. [0160]. Consequently the step of moving the welding tool to a suitable orientation involves operating and monitoring the various motors to achieve the desired position set out in the task data. [0161] At step 6.4.2 the weld is performed}
Regarding claim 3 FIT, MIFteach the limitations of claim 1. FIT further teaches
wherein step e) includes before a restart is made at step a): e1) prepare final welds for all the parts which have been tack-welded onto the respective profile in accordance with the specific welding parameter information determined by the software application.{ [0129] It is at this stage that the attachment type and properties are stored as weld tasks. The weld tasks comprise information that can be used to operate the Ironman to weld a secondary member, i.e. a plate, to the primary member. This information includes the length and type of the weld [0159] in position a tack weld is performed by the welding tool of Gantry 3. [0160]. Consequently the step of moving the welding tool to a suitable orientation involves operating and monitoring the various motors to achieve the desired position set out in the task data. [0161] At step 6.4.2 the weld is performed as a series of weld operations which are described in diagram 357 (FIG. 31).; Figs 23-35}
Regarding claim 4 FIT, MIFteach the limitations of claim 1. FIT further teaches
wherein step a2) includes before ending the method: a3) prepare final welds for all the parts which have been tack-welded onto the respective profiles of the mark or phase in accordance with the specific welding parameter information determined by the software application. { [0129] It is at this stage that the attachment type and properties are stored as weld tasks. The weld tasks comprise information that can be used to operate the Ironman to weld a secondary member, i.e. a plate, to the primary member. This information includes the length and type of the weld. [0159] in position a tack weld is performed by the welding tool of Gantry 3. [0160]. Consequently the step of moving the welding tool to a suitable orientation involves operating and monitoring the various motors to achieve the desired position set out in the task data. [0161] At step 6.4.2 the weld is performed as a series of weld operations which are described in diagram 357 (FIG. 31).; Figs 23-35}.
Regarding claim 5(1), 13(12), 19(2), 20(3) FIT, MIFteach the limitations of parent claims (1-3, 12). FIT further teaches
performing step b) by taking a subsequent or upper part from the supply order. [0131] The extraction and processing steps referred to above are carried out by the Ironman Adaptor Software 116 shown in FIG. 3. At the completion of the extraction and processing steps the 3D Structure Model 120 has been converted into a database 122 containing a sequence of primary and secondary members, their interrelationships and the tasks that must be carried out by the Ironman in order to transform the primary and secondary members into the articles originally specified in the 3D Structure Model 12 [0134] Initially an article is selected for processing, i.e. fabricating by the Ironman. The article can be selected by the human operator scanning or manually inputting an article identification code or simply by the article being the next one in an article processing list. Fig. 11 – Next article in processing list)} supply order interpreted as processing list;
PNG
media_image3.png
131
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIT teaching the article processing list but is not explicit about placing the parts in an order.
Thus. FIT does not explicitly teach, however MIF teaches
pre-collecting the parts and placing the parts in a supply order in accordance with the digital or physical list of parts generated by the software application; { 0008] The process further includes generating, in response to the model, specifications for panels, bills of materials for panels, panel fabrication drawings, and panel installation drawings, managing manufacture of each of the panels in a manufacturing facility according to the bill of materials and the fabrication drawings, and collecting in the manufacturing facility the panels and other parts for delivery.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of FIT with MIF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage rapid and accurate supply of the parts to the welding location.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over FIT in view of MIF.
Regarding claim 6(1), 14(12) FIT, MIFteach the limitations of parent claims. FIT does not teach, however MIF teaches
pre-collecting the profiles on a transport system in a supply order in accordance with the digital or physical list of profiles generated by the software application; and performing step a) by subsequently transporting the profiles to the fitter with the transport system. { [0008] One aspect of the invention may include a process for manufacturing a structure. This process includes receiving a design for a structure and creating a model of the structure comprised of panels, wherein the panels comprised of cold-formed steel, in response to the design. The process further includes generating, in response to the model, specifications for panels, bills of materials for panels, panel fabrication drawings, and panel installation drawings, managing manufacture of each of the panels in a manufacturing facility according to the bill of materials and the fabrication drawings, and collecting in the manufacturing facility the panels and other parts for delivery. [0009] In one embodiment, the process can further include transporting the panels and other parts to a construction site, and, at the construction site, assembling the panels into a structure according to the panel installation drawings.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of FIT with MIF. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of enabling the welding at a different location than when the processing list was generated from the model or where parts are stored.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over FIT in view of MIF.
Regarding claim 7(1) FIT, MIFteach the limitations of parent claim. FIT further teaches
wherein the fitting information also includes information relating to the dimensions of the parts relative to the reference points [0108]-[0114] { parameters of a number of types of structural member as follows: … member length, width, height, …}
, and wherein the fitter, after executing step b) and before executing step c) checks whether the part to be tack-welded to the profile indeed fulfills the dimensional requirements relative to the reference points.{see at [0137] least will prompt for the operator to reload the Ironman and will then recheck that the reloaded member is of correct dimensions and material thickness. Also [0154] [0157] [0161] ; Claim 10}
Regarding claims 8(1), 15(12) FIT, MIFteach the limitations of parent claims. FIT further teaches
wherein the fitting information which is generated by the software application includes: a digital or physical schedule showing the work order in which the various profiles and parts have to be processed; and wherein the method includes: processing the various profiles and parts in accordance with the work order shown on the digital or physical schedule. { see at least [0122] In order to extract the data the software loops and processes information for each primary member in the model. Details of the data extraction and processing steps carried out by the Adaptor Software 116 (FIG. 3) are set out in diagram 220 (FIG. 5) and its sub-flowcharts 250, 252, 253, 254 shown in FIGS. 6, 7, 8 and 9.; [0131] The extraction and processing steps referred to above are carried out by the Ironman Adaptor Software 116 shown in FIG. 3. At the completion of the extraction and processing steps the 3D Structure Model 120 has been converted into a database 122 containing a sequence of primary and secondary members, their interrelationships and the tasks that must be carried out by the Ironman in order to transform the primary and secondary members into the articles originally specified in the 3D Structure Model 120.; 300--Process Member--FIGS. 11 and 12; [0134] Initially an article is selected for processing, i.e. fabricating by the Ironman. The article can be selected by the human operator scanning or manually inputting an article identification code or simply by the article being the next one in an article processing list; [0135] The member's parameters are then loaded and the list of processing tasks for the selected article is also loaded. The parameters and processing tasks are retrieved from the previously created databases. [0135]-[0161]; }
Regarding claim 9(8), 16(12) FIT, MIFteach the limitations of parent claims. FIT further teaches
wherein the fitting information generated by the software application includes: status information which allows for live monitoring of the status of the fitting process of the respective mark or phase.{ see at least [0027] In a preferred embodiment the method includes operating the computer to monitor signals from tools of the fabrication machine to confirm correct operation thereof.; Claim 14. A method according to claim 1, including operating the computer to monitor signals from the tools of the fabrication machine to confirm correct operation thereof.}
Regarding claim 10(1), 17(12) FIT, MIF teach the limitations of parent claims. FIT further teaches
wherein the method includes: automatically uploading the specific welding parameter information for each part which has to be welded to a respective profile into the welding apparatus. {[0135] The member's parameters are then loaded and the list of processing tasks for the selected article is also loaded. The parameters and processing tasks are retrieved from the previously created databases.}
Regarding claim 11(1), 18(17) FIT, MIF teach the limitations of parent claims. FIT further teaches
wherein the automatically uploading of welding information for a specific weld is triggered by a user who taps on the screen at a position where that weld shown on the screen. {[0019] Preferably the method includes operating the computer to cause said machine to check that the primary member is correctly loaded in said machine.; [0023] The method may include operating the computer to check the correctness of a secondary member prior to welding it to a primary member.; [0020]-0025]
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Geringhoff Manufacturing LLC Fabrication/Welding Standards Manual MA–W1408-A Volume 1, Fabrication/Welding Procedure Rev. A, 01/11/17
TATA Handbook of Structural Steelwork Eurocode Edition. 2013
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188