DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 12 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 12 are rejected.
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 .
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element “SA10” in FIG. 3 is not disclosed in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the drawing in FIG. 10 is blurry and difficult to read. The figure includes smaller diagram with labels that are small and blurry, making them difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 lines 13 and 15 (Claim 9, lines 14 and 15 - 16; Claim 11, lines 4 - 5 and 6) recite “θi (i is a number of assembling points)” and “Lj (j is a number of cut pipes)”, respectively, but it is recommended the phrases are amended to remove the parenthesis and recite θi , i is a number of assembling points,” and “Lj , j is a number of cut pipes,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first calculation section configured to select, a second calculation section configured to determine, a third calculation section configured to generate and a fourth calculation section configured to calculate, a fifth calculation configured to select and a sixth calculation section configured to generate in claim 9, and the third calculation section is configured to form, the fifth calculation section is configured to execute, and the sixth calculation section is configured to generate in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 - 12 are 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.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the latter number” (Claim 1, lines 21 - 22).
Dependent claims 2 - 8 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: If “the latter number being a continuous count…” is in reference to “a number of intersections”, amend the claim to recite “
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the start point” (Claim 1, line 23).
Dependent claims 2 - 8 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the language to recite “a start point”.
Claim limitation “a first calculation section configured to select fittings to be disposed at the respective intersections”, “a second calculation section configured to determine a number of straight pipes required, presence or absence of cut pipes, and a length of the cut pipes, based on a distance between the respective intersections and a length of the straight pipes”, “a third calculation section configured to generate virtual pipelines on which the straight pipes and the cut pipes determined by the second calculation section are allocated between the respective intersections, each of the virtual pipelines being identified by characteristic evaluation data expressed as a sequence of numbers with an assembling angle θi (i is a number of assembling portions) of assembling portions of the respective straight pipes and cut pipes constituting the virtual pipeline and an adjustment margin Lj (j is a number of cut pipes) of the cut pipe length as variables that are settable within a predetermined allowable range”, “a fourth calculation section configured to calculate an evaluation value of each of the virtual pipelines generated by the third calculation section based on”, “a fifth calculation section configured to select one virtual pipeline from the virtual pipelines based on the evaluation value”, and “a sixth calculation section configured to generate a pipeline assembling diagram based on characteristic evaluation data of the virtual pipeline selected by the fifth calculation section” in clam 9 and “the third calculation section is configured to form the respective virtual pipelines from individuals including, as genes, the assembling angle θi (i is the number of assembling portions) of the assembling portions of the respective straight pipes and cut pipes and the adjustment margin Lj (j is the number of cut pipes) of the cut pipe length”, “the fifth calculation section is configured to execute a genetic algorithm to generate an individual with optimized genes, the genetic algorithm iterating a generation change process including any of a selection process of selecting one or more certain individuals based on evaluation values of respective individuals, a crossover process of recombining genes between individuals, and a mutation process of changing genes of any individual”, and “the sixth calculation section is configured to generate a pipeline assembling diagram based on the optimized genes of the individual” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. In particular, the specification does not disclose of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed functions. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the functions can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 10 and 12 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claims 9 and 11.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions as listed above. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 1- and 12 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claims 9 and 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1 and 9: The prior art of Ferri II (U.S. Patent 10,769,321 B2) discloses designing a pipeline using an initial layout with criteria regarding pipe deflection angles, pipe bend angles, rule settings, pipeline layout, and pipeline calculations, and modifying the pipeline to add or remove a point of intersection, change a deflection angle or curvature of a bend, cut length of a pipe, as well as a type of pipe, including a straight pipe, tube turn, or bend, and error messages based on modified pipeline layouts, Chen et al (CN 106383955 A) discloses a digital pipeline defined with a straight three-way pipe and a branch pipe direction, with a parameter attribute pipe fitting, valve parameter attributes, and Nakanishi et al (JPH 08287132 A) discloses intersection connection points regarding a piping network, determining a crossing connection point using attribute information to indicate the pipe type and whether the intersection of the pipes and their positions are the same vertically.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Ferri II, Chen, and Nakanishi, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses for claim 1: A piping diagram creation method, and for claim 9: A piping diagram creation device for creating a piping diagram of a pipeline, including the steps of generating virtual pipelines with straight pipes and cut pipes, and calculating evaluation values for each virtual pipeline using a characteristic value obtained based on a difference between intersections and control points with an error at or below a predetermined amount of threshold, with the error indicating as a misalignment between the virtual pipeline and each intersections between the virtual pipe and each control point, finding the initial error exceeding the threshold, calculating an average value of errors with intersections and control point found to be at or below the threshold, and identifying the sections of the assembly with angles from the beginning to the intersections and control point with errors at or below the threshold, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 8 and 10 - 12 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claims 1 and 9, allowable base claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
February 6, 2026