DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 12/09/2022.
Claims 1 – 20.
Priority
ADS dated 9/23/2022 does not claim any domestic or foreign priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 12/09/2022 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 9/23/2022 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract has 12 lines, no legal phraseology. The abstract is accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young_2021 (How Missile Engineering is Taking Product Line Engineering to the Extreme at Raytheon, 31st Annual INCOSE International Symposium, Honolulu, HI, USA July 17 – 22, 2021) in view of Krueger_2016 (US 2016/0078384 A1) in view of Whang_2017 (US 2017/0103159 A1).
Claim 1. Young_2021 makes obvious “A method comprising: obtaining, , initial information associated with a product to be designed, at least some of the initial information identifying an intended application for the product to be designed (page 3: “… governed technical design artifacts for reusable modular components. These component designs are governed by a governance body to ensure compliance with standards and business goals to meet the business needs…; Figure 1: governing body defines the reference model, component team develop component and store component data Page 4: “… Feature-based Product Line Engineering provides… shared assets are the “soft” artifacts that support the creation, design, implementation, deployment, and operation of products. A shared asset can be any artifact representable digitally: requirements, design models, source code, test cases, BoMs, wiring diagrams, documents, and user manuals, installation guides, and more… a shared asset used in the product line takes the form of a superset… for our missiles… Technical Data Package…”; Page 8 section 5: “… a technical data package (TDP) is a collection of technical data – models, documents… describing the missiles architecture, design… the TDP contains information and documents which we have made shared assets… that contains the feature catalogue and assertions that allow us to create an manage the trade space for a missile…”; Page 10 Specification Documents: “… people may even create documents… Feature-based PLE allows a superset of requirements to be created at the system level, at the product line level of subsystems, and at the component level…”) Identifying, multiple features associated with the product to be designed based on the initial information (page 3: “… to compose a missile product, we develop a missile reference model. The missile reference model defines the ontology of missile components – that is, it defines what components a missile does or can comprise…” Figure 2: Feature Catalogue ); Identifying,nd for each of the multiple features, one or more feature options that are acceptable for use in the intended application (Page 3: “… solution composer… allows the user to compose different design options by selecting desired features (in the sense of Feature-based PLE – see next section) of the solution. The composer then selects the feasible combinations of component variants to meet the missiles requirements…”; Figure 2: “Bill-of-Features Portfolio ); Identifying, and for each of the multiple features, one or more components or subsystems that are associated with the one or more acceptable feature options for that feature, at least some of the identified components or subsystems being reusable in multiple products (Figure 1: Solution Composer illustrates alternative reusable sub-components that are acceptable for features. For example, tail fine feature has three alternatives. Nose cone feature has two alternatives. Figure 2: illustrates shared assets are selected by the PLE Factory Configurator); Generating, multiple feasible candidate product configurations based on the identified components or subsystems, each feasible candidate product configuration representing a potential design for the product and being acceptable for use in the intended application (abstract: “… automatic generation, exploration, an pruning of an automatically generated trade space of possible missile designs that satisfy a given set of requirements…”; Figure 1: “trade models”; Figure 2: illustrate “product asset instances”; page 6: “… the configurator automates the generation of valid product configurations and outputs the products to a trade study…”; Figure 4 illustrates configurations output from the configurator); Performing,one or more simulations or analysis associated with each of the feasible candidate product configurations, at least one of the one or more simulations or analyses estimating performance of each of the feasible candidate product configurations (page 2: “… a viable design that meets its requirements (we refer to his set of all possible combinations as the missile trade space.) a significant part of the effort to compose a missile, even from a portfolio of existing parts, is the need to integrate with performance simulations, design models, flight control simulations, six-degree-of-freedom simulation, and more, to perform trade analysis and verify that performance requirements will be met. Adding the simulation capability to virtually simulate the physical hardware provides the added benefit of composing a digital twin…”; page 3: “… the solution composer is integrated with simulation capabilities to provide digital twin capabilities to ensure performance requirements can be met and provide insight into any design gaps or needed changes…”; Figure 1 illustrates “performance design and trade models and simulations” are performed as part of an analysis of the trade models composed of identified parts from solution composer. Figure 4: “trade study”; Page 9: “… a SysML model for a particular missile that can now be used as the basis for further analysis…”; page 13: “… generate validation and simulations for chosen candidates, to speed up qualification (or dis-qualification) of design candidates…”); and generating, (i) one or more of the feasible candidate product configurations and (ii) one or more results associated with the one or more simulations or analysis or information based thereon (Page 2: “… Adding the simulation capability to virtually simulate the physical hardware provides the added benefit of composing a digital twin…”; Figure 1: illustrates “trade models and simulations” and illustrates charts of the simulation results Figure 4: illustrates “trade study” loop and “resulting in only feasible designs” Figure 5 illustrates the process of paring down the trade space to selection of meaningful product configurations).
Because Young_2021 teaches a system that includes automation and illustrates graphical windows interfaces (Fig. 3, 8) typical of computers with operating systems, it may properly be found that it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to use at least one processing device (i.e., computer with an operating system) to execute the approach taught by Young_2021. Nevertheless, Young_2021 does not EXPLICITLY recite: “using at least one processing device” nor “using the at least one processing device” nor “a graphical user interface that identifies”
Krueger_2016 makes obvious “using at least one processing device” and “using the at least one processing device” (FIG. 8 “computing device”; FIG. 9: processor 901, memory 903, graphics control 921, display 932; Par 51: “… a first embodiment of a computing device 800, such as, for example, a server, used to implement one or more parts of the creation of software representation of feature bundles in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention…”; par 55: “The computing device 900 can include a processor 901, memory 903 and storage 908… all or a portion of the elements 901 – 936 can be housed in a single unit…”)
Young_2021 and Krueger_2016 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called product line/level engineering and/or creating product option for a family of similar products.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Young_2021 and Krueger_2016. The rationale for doing so would have been that Young_2021 teaches a method for doing product line engineering (i.e., feature-based Product Line Engineering: FbPLE) to create product options for a family of similar products. Young_2021 teaches configurators that are “an automated software tool” (page 5) and to “automates the generation of valid product configurations” (page 6). Krueger_2016 also teaches to perform Product Line Engineering and further teaches to use a computing device to perform Product Line Engineering. Kreuger_2016 also teaches “the present invention serves to dramatically simplify and automate the creation of product option codes” (par 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Young_2021 and Krueger_2016 for the benefit of having a device that automates aspects Product Line Engineering to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Young_2021 and Krueger_2016 does not explicitly recite: “a graphical user interface that identifies.”
Whang_2017, however, makes obvious “a graphical user interface that identifies” (i) one or more of the feasible candidate product configurations and (ii) one or more results associated with the one or more simulations or analysis or information based thereon (FIG. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; FIG. 10 block 1008: “… display user interface for selected layout of passenger arrangements optimization tool; receive and process operator input via user interface to optimize layout of passenger arrangements using previously designed configurations…”; par 2: “… designing and manufacturing aircraft…”; par 4: “designing an aircraft or other platform may include placing various structures in a design for the aircraft or other platform…”; par 5: “a designer may use a computer-implemented design tool to indicate the desired placement for various structures in a design… or other platform… such an engineering design may specify structural, mechanical, electrical, heating, air circulation, water supply, waste water drainage, or various other components…”; par 9: “an illustrative embodiment of the disclosure provides… a graphical representation of the layout of passenger arrangement is displayed… a list of the previously designed configurations that may be used is displayed…”; par 10: “… a graphical representation of the layout of passenger arrangement is displayed…”; par 33: “the different illustrative embodiments recognize and take into account that different purchasers or users of aircraft may have different requirements…”; par 35: “… illustrative embodiments may reduce the amount of time and cost needed to generate engineering designs for configurations of commodities…”; par 41: “… aircraft 105 may be optimized by using previously designed layouts…”; par 49: “… visualization tool 212 may be configured… parts used on tool 218 may be configured for displaying parts information for parts used to implement commodities…”; par 60: “… a user interface for the selected layout of passenger arrangements optimization tool may be displayed, and the operator input via the user interface may be received and processed to optimize the layout of passenger arrangements using previously designed configurations…”)
Young_2021 and Whang_2017 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called creating new designs using previous designs. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Young_2021 and Whang_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been Young_2021 teaches to use previously design components (e.g., shared assets, etc.) to configure new products and to perform trade studies with user input pare down the trade space to have feasible designs. (Figure 4). Whang_2017 teaches to have a graphical user interface by which the user and select previous designs from which new designs can be created and that by doing so designs can achieve the requirements of different purchasers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Young_2021 and Whang_2017 for the benefit of having an interface by which a user can iterate and optimize designs to meet purchaser requirements to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 8. The limitations of claim 8 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Krueger_2016 also makes obvious the further limitations of “An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device configured to:” (FIG. 8 “computing device”; FIG. 9: processor 901, memory 903, graphics control 921, display 932; Par 51: “… a first embodiment of a computing device 800, such as, for example, a server, used to implement one or more parts of the creation of software representation of feature bundles in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention…”; par 55: “The computing device 900 can include a processor 901, memory 903 and storage 908… all or a portion of the elements 901 – 936 can be housed in a single unit…”)
Claim 15. The limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Krueger_2016 also makes obvious the further limitations of “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed cause at least one processor to:” (FIG. 8 “computing device”; FIG. 9: processor 901, memory 903, graphics control 921, display 932; Par 51: “… a first embodiment of a computing device 800, such as, for example, a server, used to implement one or more parts of the creation of software representation of feature bundles in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention…”; par 55: “The computing device 900 can include a processor 901, memory 903 and storage 908… all or a portion of the elements 901 – 936 can be housed in a single unit…”)
Claim 2, 9, 16. Krueger_2016 also makes obvious “Wherein: the initial information is obtained from a user; and Identifying the multiple features associated with the product to be designed comprises mapping the initial information to the multiple features using a feature model” (par 5: “… product option codes are often used to create the mapping from an option selection… this requires engineers to create mappings from product option codes to thousands of part…”; par 8: “… the invention splits the mapping into two mappings, one that is difficult and done once plus one that is easy and repeated to get the product option codes…”; par 11: “the majority of the mapping effort goes into the single mapping from multistage configuration trees…”).
Claim 3, 10, 17. Young_2012 makes obvious “Wherein the identifying the one or more feature components for each feature comprises: Identifying a feature profile definition for each feature, the feature profile definition identifying all feature options available for that feature; and
Disregarding at least one feature option in one or more of the feature profile definitions based on (i) the intended application or (ii) the initial information, one or more remaining feature options in each feature profile definition representing the one or more acceptable feature options for the associated feature” (page 5 Feature Catalogue, Bill-of-Features, Figure 2 illustrates a feature catalogue and the bill-of features disregards at least one feature option in the feature catalogue. Page 7: “… product families are groupings of product based on their features…”).
Krueger_2016 also makes obvious “…feature profile definitions based on (i) the intended application…” (par 5 – 8: “… product option codes are often used to create an option selection… for example, a “sport package” option for a pickup truck family may be different from the “sport package” for a luxury sedan family…”; par 47 – 50: “… configuration tree 700 with feature bundles applied. It is an example of how feature bundles might be used in practice… P701 represents the feature configurations offered by the product engineering team… nodes in the tree, node P-US 702 and node P-China 703, represent the manufacturable products for the US and China markets, respectively… salable product configurations for the standard (S), midrange (M) and premium (X) tiers of both the US and China markets…” EXAMINER NOTE: teaches feature profiles for different intended applications (US vs. China, trucks, sedans, etc.)
Claim 4, 11. Young_2021 makes obvious “Wherein identifying the one or more components or subsystems for each feature comprises: identifying, using a digital library of components and subsystems, one or more components or subsystems associated with each acceptable feature option for the associated feature” (Figure 1: Digital Library and Solution Composer).
Claim 5, 12, 18 Young_2021 makes obvious “Wherein generating, the multiple feasible candidate product configurations comprises: generating at least one of the feasible candidate product configurations using user inputthe user input identifying one or more user-selected components or subsystems to be used in the at least one feasible candidate product configurations” (page 3: “… solution composer… the solution composer allows the user to compose different design options by selecting desired features… of the solution. The composer then selects the feasible combinations of component variants to meet the missile’s feature requirements…”).
Whang_2017 makes obvious “Wherein generating, the multiple feasible candidate product configurations comprises: generating at least one of the feasible candidate product configurations using user input received via the graphical user interface, the user input identifying one or more user-selected components or subsystems to be used in the at least one feasible candidate product configurations” (FIG. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; FIG. 10 block 1008: “… display user interface for selected layout of passenger arrangements optimization tool; receive and process operator input via user interface to optimize layout of passenger arrangements using previously designed configurations…”; par 2: “… designing and manufacturing aircraft…”; par 4: “designing an aircraft or other platform may include placing various structures in a design for the aircraft or other platform…”; par 5: “a designer may use a computer-implemented design tool to indicate the desired placement for various structures in a design… or other platform… such an engineering design may specify structural, mechanical, electrical, heating, air circulation, water supply, waste water drainage, or various other components…”; par 9: “an illustrative embodiment of the disclosure provides… a graphical representation of the layout of passenger arrangement is displayed… a list of the previously designed configurations that may be used is displayed…”; par 10: “… a graphical representation of the layout of passenger arrangement is displayed…”; par 33: “the different illustrative embodiments recognize and take into account that different purchasers or users of aircraft may have different requirements…”; par 35: “… illustrative embodiments may reduce the amount of time and cost needed to generate engineering designs for configurations of commodities…”; par 41: “… aircraft 105 may be optimized by using previously designed layouts…”; par 49: “… visualization tool 212 may be configured… parts used on tool 218 may be configured for displaying parts information for parts used to implement commodities…”; par 60: “… a user interface for the selected layout of passenger arrangements optimization tool may be displayed, and the operator input via the user interface may be received and processed to optimize the layout of passenger arrangements using previously designed configurations…”).
Claim 6, 13, 19. Young_2021 makes obvious “Wherein the one or more simulations or analyzes associated with each feasible candidate product configuration comprises performing at least one trade study involving the feasible candidate product configuration” (Figure 4: “trade study”).
Claim 7, 14, 20. Young_2021 makes obvious to have “a listing of multiple classes of components or subsystems, at least one of the classes containing to or more components or subsystems that are each usable in the product” (Figure 1 illustrates a solution composer section that illustrates a plurality of classes with more than one component/subsystem that are usable for the product. Young_2021, however, merely doesn’t illustrate a graphical user interface.
Whang_2017, however, makes obvious “Wherein the graphical user interface presents a graphical representation of the product to be designed along with” selections of previously design options (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; par 9: “… a list of the previously designed configurations that may be used is displayed in response to an operator selecting the location of the commodity… an input by an operator selecting a selected previously designed configuration from the list of previously designed configurations is received. The layout… is changed to include the selected previously designed configuration…”; Par 39: “… layout of passenger arrangement information 122 may include appropriate information for use by aircraft manufacturing system 104 to implement layout…”; Par 47: “previously designed layout of passenger arrangements identification tool 208 may be configured for identifying and selecting a previously designed layout of passenger arrangements for an aircraft… to identify and display a previously designed layout…”; Par 48: “previously design configurations identification and selection tool 210 may be configured for designing a layout of passenger arrangements for an aircraft using previously designed configurations… user interface 400 for previously designed configuration identification and selection tool… identification and selection tool 210 to identify and select…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187