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 .
Claims 1-22 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 12/11/2025.
Claims 1 & 16 are amended.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. 20180314767 A1 by Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. 20180314767 A1 by Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker, further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200184125 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz.
Claim(s) 6-7 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. 20180314767 A1 by Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker, further in view of NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“STEP File Analyzer and Viewer User Guide (Update 7)”, Published by NIST in Oct 2021, and referred as Lipman2 hereafter in the rejection).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. 20180314767 A1 by Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker, further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20170148227 A1 by ALSAFFAR; Rahim et al.
Claim(s) 17-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200184125 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200184125 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz., further in view of NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“STEP File Analyzer and Viewer User Guide (Update 7)”, Published by NIST in Oct 2021, and referred as Lipman2 hereafter in the rejection).
This action is made Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.9-10:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) Claim 2-3 explanation still does not provide clarity as it is still not what would be updated (e.g. the model or the PMI data).
(Argument 2) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.11-12:
PNG
media_image2.png
566
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Response 2) Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant has generally recited on remarks Pg.10-11 that claim 1 limitation f)-i) are not taught by Lipman. This is not substantiated with argument against specific mapping made for exact limitations in the rejection; instead an argument is made paraphrasing what applicant intends the limitation to be read as. Addressing those arguments more specifically below:
As per [A], in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cognitive data type acquisition, CAV files, and parsing as argued) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). There is no mention of cognitive data type acquisition or the CAV files e.g. in the claim 1. Claim 12 mentions eCAV application for validation which is mapped as being taught by Cochrane. Applicant is arguing granularity and purpose of features (like parsing into multiple cells of spreadsheet of CAV file) but such detail is not present in the claim. Applicant has summarily argued CAV files as intended (but not claimed) are not mapped.
As per [B], aspect argued is claimed in claim 6 and mapped to the Lipman2 (in combination with Lipman and Cochrane) where the spreadsheet shows highlighted validation data (as shown in Figure 83-85 for the validation of validation properties as specific elements with ID as shown in Figure 75-77).
(Argument 3) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.12-13:
PNG
media_image3.png
196
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Response 3)The summarization to conclusion of Lipman and Cochrane’s teachings does not show how the claimed limitations are not taught by the mapping above. Examiner also does not find the summarization to be correct that Lipman does not teach verification/validation and linkage because Lipman teaches explicitly that validation is reported in the spreadsheet format for each cell (See Lipman §4.4-4.5). Merely enumerating limitation and arguing they are different/not taught is not persuasive. No new arguments are made for the dependent claims. Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 2-3 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 3 recites:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to: perform a correctness evaluation by comparing one or more characteristics of the first feature with one or more expected characteristics of the validation data; and identify at least one deficiency in the one or more characteristics based on the correctness evaluation.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to update the at least one deficiency based on the one or more expected characteristics.
A deficiency is something that is missing or incorrect as pointed in claim 2. Since the underlying reasons for deficiency have not changed in claim 3, it is unclear how the deficiency is updated. Correcting the deficiency is not claimed as correcting the underlying reasons for deficiency and it is unclear what would be updated (e.g. the model or the PMI data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. 20180314767 A1 by Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker.
Regarding Claims 1 & 16 (Updated 12/23/2025)
Lipman teaches (claim 1). A system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to: /
(Claim 16) A computer-implemented (Lipman : Graphical Abstract showing the method flow) method, comprising
determine a first identifier for first product and manufacturing information (PMI) (Lipman: Fig.11-12 showing PMI representation of identifiers in rows related to PMI information& §2.3 with Fig.3-4 showing the PMI in STEP data where Geometric and dimensional tolerances (PMI) are represented in STEP files) ;
determine a first computer-aided design (CAD) model, wherein the CAD model comprises a model of a component or part thereof having a plurality of features (Lipman: Fig. 2 "... shows a CAD model with representative GD&T annotations including dimensions, tolerances, geometry control tools, tolerance
zones, datum reference frames, and datum features. ...", & §2.2; Fig.5 §4.2 "... An example of a linear dimension of 15.0 with plus–minus bounds of 0.05 (15 ± 0.05) is
shown on the CAD model in the upper right of Fig. 2. In Fig. 5, the boxes contain entity names. The names of entity attributes are displayed next to the lines connecting the boxes...."); associate a second identifier of a first feature of the plurality of features with the first identifier (Lipman: §4.2, Fig.6 "... In a manner similar to Fig. 5 [CAD], there are patterns of entities, attributes, and required values that correspond to PMI representation for many other geometric tolerances and datum features [35]. These can also be instantiated in STEP files similar to the example in Fig. 6...."; §4.5) ; associate validation data for a first PMI with the second identifier; determine selection of the first feature in the CAD model (Lipman: §4.3 "... Input to the STEP File Analyzer is one or more STEP files. Output from the software is a spreadsheet that simplifies inspection of STEP entities and
attributes. A worksheet is generated for every entity type in the STEP file where each row is an entity instance and the values in the columns are entity attributes...."; §4.5 "... . For example, geometric validation properties [36] are characteristics
of solid and surface models, such as the area, volume, and centroid of a part. Geometric validation properties are computed by a CAD system and exported in a STEP file. When the STEP file is imported to a receiving CAD system, that system computes the same validation properties based on the imported part geometry and
compares them to the values in the STEP file from the originating system....") ; and provide a graphical indication of the validation data based at least in part on the selection of the first feature (Lipman: Fig.11 showing PMI representation that meets the CAD model (such as in Fig.10) and Fig.12 shows representation that does not as discussed in §4.5 & §5) .
Although in the Lipman the computer aided design and validation of design disclosure which requires a computer and it components (processor & memory), such components are not explicitly recited in the Lipman. Lipman could be presented as single reference obviousness rejection. In alternate Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker is presented to complement Lipman.
Cochrane teaches A system (Cochrane: [0023]) , comprising: at least one processor (Cochrane: [0023] processor 24) ; and memory (Cochrane : [0023] memory system 26) storing instructions configured to cause the at least one processor. Cochrane is also directed to verification and validation of the CAD model with the PMI model (Cochrane: See Fig.1 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Cochrane to Lipman to perform the CAD-PMI validation being explicitly stated as being performed on the computer (Cochrane: [0023] & Abstract; Lipman: Abstract) . The motivation to combine would have been that Cochrane and Lipman are analogous art to the instant claim in the same field of systems engineering in which CAD model & PMI data (e.g. as in STEP data) are validated (Cochrane: See Fig.1 & 4; Lipman: Abstract & §4.5)..
Regarding Claim 2
Lipman teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to: perform a correctness evaluation by comparing one or more characteristics of the first feature with one or more expected characteristics of the validation data (Lipman: Fig.10 representing entity and attributes for CAD data as shown in Fig.9 and 2 compared to the PMI representation in Fig.12 which is missing data/incorrect) ; and identify at least one deficiency in the one or more characteristics based on the correctness evaluation (Lipman: §4.4 & Fig.12 "... Similar to Fig. 11, Fig. 12 shows the visual presentation of GD&T annotations reconstructed from PMI representations. However, in this case the visual presentation does not completely correspond to the expected CAD model GD&T annotations in Fig. 2. This indicates
either non-conformance to the recommended practice for PMI or bugs in the STEP file. The following PMI information is missing or wrong:...").
Regarding Claim 4
Cochrane teaches 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to disassociate the validation data from the first feature (Cochrane: [0046] "... A drop-down control 304 may be used to create a callout in a specific view of the CAD model 206 linked to PMI information. When adding a callout the specific view, the radio buttons 306, 308, 310, 312, 314 may be used. For example, radio button 306 may be used to associate the crated callout to an annotation (e.g., PMI annotation). The radio button 308 may be used to include sub callouts, that is, callouts of a callout. The radio button 310 may be used to create a balloon for basic dimensions, e.g., basic PMI dimensions. The radio button 312 may be used to create a balloon for reference dimensions. The radio button 314 may be used to delete all existing balloons in the selected view and replace with new eCAV data.. ." – deleting the eCAV balloons are understood as disassociate the validation data from the first feature).
Regarding Claim 5
Cochrane teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to associate the validation data with a third identifier (Cochrane: [0046] "... A drop-down control 304 may be used to create a callout in a specific view of the CAD model 206 linked to PMI information. When adding a callout the specific view, the radio buttons 306, 308, 310, 312, 314 may be used. For example, radio button 306 may be used to associate the crated callout to an annotation (e.g., PMI annotation). The radio button 308 may be used to include sub callouts, that is, callouts of a callout. The radio button 310 may be used to create a balloon for basic dimensions, e.g., basic PMI dimensions. The radio button 312 may be used to create a balloon for reference dimensions. The radio button 314 may be used to delete all existing balloons in the selected view and replace with new eCAV data.. ." – replacing withnew eCAV balloons data is understood as associating the validation data from the third identifier).
Regarding Claim 8
Cochrane teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the validation data comprise at least one of: nominal values, plus/minus tolerances, units of measure, critical-to-quality (CTQ) types, statistical process control (SPC) data, verification (VER) data, dimension type information, and tolerance type information (Cochrane: [0018]) .
Regarding Claim 9
Lipman teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the first feature comprises a plurality of units (Lipman: Fig.9 & 10 showing one feature with plurality of attributes as units) ; and the validation data comprises corresponding a plurality of validation data rows (Lipman: Fig.11 & 12 show plurality of corresponding validation row). Alternately Also see Lipman2 below.
Regarding Claim 12
Cochrane teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to generate the validation data using an electronic characteristic accountability and verification (eCAV) application (Cochrane: Fig.4 & 5 [0021] ) .
Regarding Claim 13
Lipman teaches the system of claim 1 (Lipman: §4.4-4.5 & Fig.9-12 showing association of one feature and attributes with corresponding PMI data as mapped in claim 1, here performing the same process for second feature is simply Duplication of Parts with same process. See In re Harza) , wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to: associate a second feature of the plurality of features with a third identifier for second PMI, wherein the second feature is identified by a fourth identifier (Lipman: §4.4-4.5 & Fig.9-12; See Features A-D, B being the second feature in Fig.11 row 3) ; and associate second validation data for the second PMI with the fourth identifier (Lipman: §4.4-4.5 & Fig.9-12) .
Regarding Claim 14
Cochrane teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the processor to concurrently display the first feature and the validation data (Cochrane: Fig.5 showing the feature (on left) and validation data (as eCAV) on right) .
Regarding Claim 15
Lipman teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to store the second identifier in association with the validation data (Lipman: See Fig.9 & Fig.11 See row 4) .
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. 20180314767 A1 by Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker, further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200184125 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz.
Regarding Claim 3
Teachings of Lipman and Cochrane are shown in the parent claim 2.
Lipman and Cochrane do not explicitly teach update the at least one deficiency based on the one or more expected characteristics.
Machalica teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to update the at least one deficiency based on the one or more expected characteristics (Machalica: [0008]; Figs.9-10; [0069]-[0079] ) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Machalica to Lipman and Cochrane to further complement the teaching of CAD model vs PMI model mismatch (Lipman: §4.4 Fig.12). The motivation to combine would have been that Machalica , Lipman and Cochrane are analogous art to the instant claim in the same field of systems engineering in which CAD model & PMI data (e.g. as in STEP data) are validated and missing PMI data is assigned (Machalica: [0004] overcoming the manual assigning the missing PMI information; Cochrane: See Fig.1 & 4; Lipman: Abstract & §4.4-4.5 showing validation and missing PMI data in PMI representation compared to the CAD Model data in Fig.10).
Claim(s) 6-7 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. 20180314767 A1 by Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker, further in view of NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“STEP File Analyzer and Viewer User Guide (Update 7)”, Published by NIST in Oct 2021, and referred as Lipman2 hereafter in the rejection).
Regarding Claim 6
Teachings of Lipman and Cochrane are shown in the parent claim 1. Cochrane explicitly teaches a CAD application is used to perform the selection of the first feature in the CAD model (Cochrane: Fig.4 [0042]-[0044]; [0043] "... For example, changes to the model 206 may be easily performed via the CAD system 32, and CAV data 212 and/or PMI objects 208 may still be associated with certain CAD objects, including CAD objects that may have been updated.... Results of the selection may be presented to a user so that the user may edit the selection if desired, before the CAV document 218 is finalized. ") ;
Lipman and Cochrane do not explicitly teach a spreadsheet application is used to provide the graphical indication of the validation data.
Lipman2 teaches a spreadsheet application is used to provide the graphical indication of the validation data (Lipman2: §6.3 & §6.5) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Lipman2 to Lipman and Cochrane. The motivation to combine would have been that Lipman2 is work of Lipman in the same field of endeavor as the instant claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7
Lipman2 teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the validation data is displayed as one or more highlighted rows of the spreadsheet application (Lipman2: Figs.81-83 in §6.5, §6.6.2).
Regarding Claim 11
Lipman2 teaches teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to: close a spreadsheet application that is operable to provide the graphical indication of the validation data (Lipman2: §3.4.3; §6.1.6; §6.5) ; update contents of the validation data, thereby generating updated validation data (Lipman2: §6.5) ; open the spreadsheet application (Lipman: §6.5 ) ; detect selection of the first feature in the CAD model (Lipman2: §6.5) ; and in response to the detected selection, provide a second graphical indication of the validation data (Lipman2: §6.5 showing validation information; §6.6.1 discussing how the incorrect validation data is identified updated ) . Examiner’s Note: Lipman2 does not disclose auto updating aspect of validation data spreadsheets in §6.5 or otherwise. Therefore the claimed process would have to performed again if any update is needed. Lippman2 show performing the process once.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. 20180314767 A1 by Cochrane; Alexandria Stoker, further in view of US PGPUB No. US 20170148227 A1 by ALSAFFAR; Rahim et al.
Regarding Claim 10
Teachings of Lipman and Cochrane are shown in the parent claim 1.
Lipman and Cochrane do not explicitly teach wherein association of the first feature with the first identifier cannot be modified subsequent to creation of the first feature.
ALSAFFAR teaches the system of claim 1, wherein association of the first feature with the first identifier cannot be modified subsequent to creation of the first feature (ALSAFFAR: [0173] "... Process 2600 may determine whether the current view has any tables (step 2614), overload properties (step 2618), or balloons (step 2622). Overload properties may exist if the current view is a view of an assembly. Balloons may exist if the current view is an exploded view. If the current view has tables, process 2600 may instantiate and set the table properties using the drawing information (step 2616). If the current view has overload properties, process 2600 may set the overload properties (step 2620). If the current view has balloons, process 2600 may set the balloon properties (step 2624). Process 2600 may conclude with locking the current view (step 2626)....") .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of ALSAFFAR to Lipman and Cochrane to further complement the teaching of CAD to lock down information. The motivation to combine would have been that ALSAFFAR, Lipman and Cochrane are analogous art to the instant claim in the same field of systems engineering in which CAD modelling data synchronization (ALSAFFAR: Fig.2 – data synchronization (e.g. for Fig.6 element 632 GDI, table text) similar to CAD and PMI data in Cochrane: See Fig.1 & 4; Lipman: Abstract & §4.4-4.5 showing validation and missing PMI data in PMI representation compared to the CAD Model data in Fig.10).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 17-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200184125 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz.
Regarding Claim 17
Lipman teaches A system, comprising: (Lipman: Fig.2 showing features A-C at least for the CAD component shown) , wherein the first file comprises at least a first annotation encoding a set of characteristics of a first feature of the plurality of features (Lipman: See features in Fig.2, one such feature is shown with plurality of characteristics in Fig.9-10) ; execute an (Lipman: Graphical Abstract on Pg.14 showing the association) , wherein the second file comprises a set of annotation-specific entries (Lipman: Fig.4 as STEP file entry); associate the first annotation with first product manufacturing information (PMI) data, wherein the first annotation corresponds to a first design feature of the CAD model and comprises one or more characteristics of the first design feature (Lipman: Fig. 2 "... shows a CAD model with representative GD&T annotations including dimensions, tolerances, geometry control tools, tolerance
zones, datum reference frames, and datum features. ...", & §2.2; Fig.5 §4.2 "... An example of a linear dimension of 15.0 with plus–minus bounds of 0.05 (15 ± 0.05) is
shown on the CAD model in the upper right of Fig. 2. In Fig. 5, the boxes contain entity names. The names of entity attributes are displayed next to the lines connecting the boxes...." §4.2, Fig.6 "... In a manner similar to Fig. 5 [CAD], there are patterns of entities, attributes, and required values that correspond to PMI representation for many other geometric tolerances and datum features [35]. These can also be instantiated in STEP files similar to the example in Fig. 6...."; §4.5) ;
The crossed-out limitations are not explicitly taught by Lipman.
Machalica teaches A system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions configured to cause the at least one processor (Machalica: [0037]-[0038]) … execute an electronic characteristic accountability and verification (eCAV) system to generate a second file based on a set of product and manufacturing information (PMI) data associated with the CAD model (Machalica: [0035] & Fig.4). Machalica further teaches associate the first annotation to a first annotation-specific entry of the set of annotation-specific entries, wherein the first annotation-specific entry comprises one or more expected characteristics of the first feature (Machalica: [0008]; Figs.9-10; [0069]-[0079]) ; detect selection of the first feature in a CAD application (Machalica: [0027]) ; and provide, using the first annotation-specific entry, a graphical indication of the one or more expected characteristics (Machalica: [0008]; Figs.9-10; [0069]-[0079]) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Machalica to Lipman to further complement the teaching of CAD model vs PMI model mismatch (Lipman: §4.4 Fig.12). The motivation to combine would have been that Machalica and Lipman are analogous art to the instant claim in the same field of systems engineering in which CAD model & PMI data (e.g. as in STEP data) are validated and missing PMI data is assigned (Machalica: [0004] overcoming the manual assigning the missing PMI information; Lipman: Abstract & §4.4-4.5 showing validation and missing PMI data in PMI representation compared to the CAD Model data in Fig.10).
Regarding Claim 18
Lipman teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to: perform a correctness evaluation based on the first annotation and the first annotation-specific entry (Lipman: Fig.10 representing entity and attributes for CAD data as shown in Fig.9 and 2 compared to the PMI representation in Fig.12 which is missing data/incorrect); and identify at least one deficiency in the one or more characteristics based on the correctness evaluation (Lipman: §4.4 & Fig.12 "... Similar to Fig. 11, Fig. 12 shows the visual presentation of GD&T annotations reconstructed from PMI representations. However, in this case the visual presentation does not completely correspond to the expected CAD model GD&T annotations in Fig. 2. This indicates either non-conformance to the recommended practice for PMI or bugs in the STEP file. The following PMI information is missing or wrong:...")..
Regarding Claim 19
Machalica teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to update the at least one deficiency based on the one or more expected characteristics (Machalica: [0008]; Figs.9-10; [0069]-[0079] ).
Regarding Claim 20
Lipman teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the instructions are configured to further cause the at least one processor to: determine a first unique identifier that identifies the first PMI data (Lipman: Fig.6 showing the unique identifier in PMI data; ) ; and associate the first annotation with the first PMI data by at least encoding the first unique identifier in the first annotation (Lipman: Fig.6 being associated with CAD data (annotation) with unique identifier e.g. #6507 referenced in both Fig.5 & 6) .
Regarding Claim 22
Machalica teaches the system of claim 17, wherein: the graphical indication is provided using a graphical interface of a second application (Machalica: Fig.10 does not show CAD data as in Fig.5) different from the CAD application (Machalica: Fig. 5) ; and the graphical indication of the one or more expected characteristics is displayed concurrent with display of the CAD model (Machalica: Fig.9-10 showing the expected results assigned to CAD Model element 228 in Fig.9/10 ) .
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data exchange files”, published in 2015), in view of US PGPUB No. US 20200184125 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz., further in view of NPL by Robert Lipman et al (“STEP File Analyzer and Viewer User Guide (Update 7)”, Published by NIST in Oct 2021, and referred as Lipman2 hereafter in the rejection).
Regarding Claim 21
Teachings of Lipman and Machalica are shown in the parent claim 17.
Lipman and Machalica do not explicitly teach the limitations of this claim.
Lipman2 teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the graphical indication of the one or more expected characteristics is provided as one or more highlighted rows of a spreadsheet application (Lipman2: Figs.81-83 in §6.5).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Lipman2 to Lipman and Machalica. The motivation to combine would have been that Lipman2 is work of Lipman in the same field of endeavor as the instant claim 17.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Relevant Prior Art of Record
US PGPUB No US 20180292815 A1 by Byers; Jason Anton et al. discloses limitations of claim 6, 7 & 9 where the PMI validation data is checked against the CAD model and displayed in form of spreadsheet. Here the user can select a specific feature from the CAD model also to show the specific validation. This prior art can be used in alternate prior art for claims 6, 7 and 9. See [0051]-[0053] & Fig.6:
PNG
media_image4.png
656
936
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Wednesday, December 24, 2025
Prosecution Insights