DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 7, 2022 and March 22, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites “selecting, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, select a given local CAD file,” which should be corrected to “selecting […]
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-11 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. A distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system comprising:
a server computing device comprising a reference CAD object database and a workstation database, wherein:
the reference CAD object database comprises a plurality of reference CAD objects;
the workstation database includes a plurality of workstation entries;
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines one or more master properties associated with a set of the reference CAD objects from among the plurality of reference CAD objects and location-based information of a workstation within a manufacturing environment; and
the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof; and
a plurality of client computing devices communicably coupled to the server computing device, wherein:
each client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices comprises a client database;
the client database comprises one or more local CAD files, one or more local properties associated with each of the one or more local CAD files, and location-based information associated with each of the one or more local CAD files; and
each client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices is configured to:
select a given local CAD file from among the one or more CAD files;
identify a given workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries associated with the given local CAD file;
selectively modify a set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on a comparison between the set of one or more master properties and a set of one or more local properties associated with the given local CAD file; and
selectively modify a set of the location-based information defined by the given workstation entry based on a comparison between the set of the location-based information and a set of one or more local location-based information associated with the given local CAD file.
The limitations select a given local CAD file, identify a given workstation entry, selectively modify a set of one or more master properties, and selectively modify a set of the location-based information are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. A user can perform the mental judgement of selecting a CAD file. A user can perform the mental observation of identifying a workstation entry. A user can perform the mental evaluation of modifying master properties and location-based information. A user may use pen and paper to record the properties and information and modify them accordingly.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
a server computing device comprising a reference CAD object database and a workstation database (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the reference CAD object database comprises a plurality of reference CAD objects (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the workstation database includes a plurality of workstation entries (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines one or more master properties associated with a set of the reference CAD objects from among the plurality of reference CAD objects and location-based information of a workstation within a manufacturing environment (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
a plurality of client computing devices communicably coupled to the server computing device (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
each client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices comprises a client database (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the client database comprises one or more local CAD files, one or more local properties associated with each of the one or more local CAD files, and location-based information associated with each of the one or more local CAD files (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“Distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system,” “server computing device,” and “client computing devices” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system,” “server computing device,” and “client computing devices” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 1, wherein each reference CAD object from among the plurality of reference CAD objects is associated with one or more CAD graphic formats; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 2, wherein the one or more CAD graphic formats includes a two-dimensional (2D) graphic type, a three-dimensional (3D) graphic type, an augmented reality graphic type, a virtual reality graphic type, or a combination thereof; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 1, wherein the location-based information is further based on an area of the workstation, a perimeter of the workstation, position coordinates of the workstation, or a combination thereof; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 1, wherein selectively modifying the set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on the comparison further comprises adding additional tools from among the one or more tools, additional workpieces from among the one or more workpieces, or a combination thereof associated with the given workstation entry; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of modifying properties to add additional tools to an entry. A user may use pen and paper to record and modify the entry.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 1, wherein selectively modifying the set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on the comparison further comprises replacing a set of tools from among the one or more tools, a set of workpieces from among the one or more workpieces, or a combination thereof associated with the given workstation entry; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of modifying properties to replace tools in an entry. A user may use pen and paper to record and modify the entry.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 1, wherein selectively modifying the set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on the comparison further comprises deleting a set of tools from among the one or more tools, a set of workpieces from among the one or more workpieces, or a combination thereof associated with the given workstation entry; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of modifying properties to delete tools from an entry. A user may use pen and paper to record and modify the entry.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 1, wherein selecting the given local CAD file is further based on an input received by a given client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 1, wherein the server computing device and the plurality of client computing devices are communicably coupled by an application programming interface (API); this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of workstation entries are stored as text-based files; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites The distributed CAD system of Claim 10, wherein the text-based files are comma-separated values (CSV) files; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 11 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 12 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 12-20 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
12. A method for managing a distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system comprising a server computing device communicably coupled to a plurality of client computing devices, the server computing device comprising a reference CAD object database and a workstation database, each client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices comprises a client database, the client database comprises one or more local CAD files, the one or more local CAD files defining one or more local properties associated with each of the one or more local CAD files and location-based information associated with each of the one or more local CAD files, the method comprising:
determining, by the server computing device, whether an input received by a given client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices satisfies a file comparison condition, wherein:
the reference CAD object database comprises a plurality of reference CAD objects;
the workstation database includes a plurality of workstation entries;
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines one or more master properties associated with a set of the reference CAD objects from among the plurality of reference CAD objects and location-based information of a workstation within a manufacturing environment; and
the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof; and
selecting, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, select a given local CAD file from among the one or more CAD files;
identifying, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, a given workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries associated with the given local CAD file;
selectively modifying, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, a set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on a comparison between the set of one or more master properties and a set of one or more local properties associated with the given local CAD file; and
selectively modifying, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, a set of location-based information defined by the given workstation entry based on a comparison between the location- based information and a set of location-based information associated with the given local CAD file.
The limitations determining […] whether an input […] satisfies a file comparison condition, selecting […] a given local CAD file, identifying […] a given workstation entry, selectively modifying a set of one or more master properties, and selectively modifying a set of the location-based information are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. A user can perform the mental judgement of selecting a CAD file. A user can perform the mental observation of identifying a workstation entry. A user can perform the mental evaluation of modifying master properties and location-based information. A user may use pen and paper to record the properties and information and modify them accordingly.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 12 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
method for managing a distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
comprising a server computing device communicably coupled to a plurality of client computing devices, the server computing device comprising a reference CAD object database and a workstation database, each client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices comprises a client database, the client database comprises one or more local CAD files, the one or more local CAD files defining one or more local properties associated with each of the one or more local CAD files and location-based information associated with each of the one or more local CAD files (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the reference CAD object database comprises a plurality of reference CAD objects (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the workstation database includes a plurality of workstation entries (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines one or more master properties associated with a set of the reference CAD objects from among the plurality of reference CAD objects and location-based information of a workstation within a manufacturing environment (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
“Distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system,” “server computing device,” and “client computing devices” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system,” “server computing device,” and “client computing devices” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 12 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 13-20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-8 and 10, respectively, and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0337215 A1), hereinafter Bowman, in view of Winn et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,740,500 B1), hereinafter Winn, further in view of Lee et a. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0256793 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Bowman teaches A distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system (“FIG. 1B is a block diagram of one example of a multi-user CAD system 150 that is consistent with one or more embodiments of the claimed invention.”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
comprising: a server computing device comprising a reference CAD object database and a workstation database (“As depicted, the multi-user CAD system 150 includes a CAD data store 152, a storage server 155, an assignment server 160, a CAD model server 165, an authentication server 170, one or more traffic consolidation servers 175, an internetwork 180, and a plurality of workstations”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
wherein: the reference CAD object database comprises a plurality of reference CAD objects (“The CAD data store 152 stores and retrieves files or other units of data such as database records that correspond to a CAD model of an engineering object.”) (e.g., paragraph [0037]).
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines […] location-based information of a workstation within a manufacturing environment (“Controlling user access to CAD data may include partitioning an engineering object into one or more editing regions [...] The region assignment tools 730 may provide a variety of information relative to collaborative editing such as user identifiers 731, user names 732 and locations 733, a region name 734, a user priority 735, and a layer indicator 736. The user names 731 may correspond to a particular user identifier 724.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0038] and [0097]).
and a plurality of client computing devices communicably coupled to the server computing device (“Each workstation 125 may include a separate computing device 126 and a communications device 127 or the computing device and communications device may [be] integrated into the workstation 125.”) (e.g., paragraph [0031]).
wherein: each client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices comprises a client database (“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of one example of a multi-user CAD apparatus 200 that is consistent with one or more embodiments of the claimed invention [...] Each of the modules may reside on a single computing device (i.e. node) or be collaboratively partitioned onto multiple devices or nodes. For example, the depicted embodiment includes a client node 200a [...] In one embodiment, the local model datastore 220a contains local copies of CAD models managed by the global model datastore 220b.) (e.g., paragraphs [0044], [0045], and [0049]).
the client database comprises one or more local CAD files, one or more local properties associated with each of the one or more local CAD files, and location-based information associated with each of the one or more local CAD files (“In one embodiment, the local model datastore 220a contains local copies of CAD models managed by the global model datastore 220b [...] the change control module 230 ensures that users can only access data that corresponds to parts, regions, geometries, elements and features that have been assigned to the user. All other users may be blocked by the change control module 230 from accessing data corresponding to the parts, regions, geometries, elements or features within the editing region that has been assigned to that user.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0049] and [0050]).
and each client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices is configured to: select a given local CAD file from among the one or more CAD files (“The object rendering module 212 renders the engineering object on a display for viewing by the user. The user interface module 210 may overlay interface elements such as control points on the rendered engineering object.”) (e.g., paragraph [0047]).
selectively modify a set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on a comparison between the set of one or more master properties and a set of one or more local properties associated with the given local CAD file (“The change control module 230 controls user access to data managed by the model datastore 220. In one embodiment, the change control module 230 ensures that users can only access data that corresponds to parts, regions, geometries, elements and features that have been assigned to the user.”) (e.g., paragraph [0050]).
and selectively modify a set of the location-based information defined by the given workstation entry based on a comparison between the set of the location-based information and a set of one or more local location-based information associated with the given local CAD file (“The local change control module 230a may generate feature changes for the CAD model corresponding to editing sequences performed by the user, such as keyboard input, mouse movements, or the like. Generating feature changes from editing sequences facilitates change control for the features [...] The update module 250 propagates changes to editable features between nodes of the multi-user CAD system [...] In the depicted embodiment, valid changes to a local copy of an engineering model are communicated by the client update module 250a to the server update module 250b within the server node 200b.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0050] and [0054]).
However, Bowman does not appear to specifically teach the workstation database includes a plurality of workstation entries; each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines one or more master properties associated with a set of the reference CAD objects from among the plurality of reference CAD objects […] and the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof [and] identify a given workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries associated with the given local CAD file.
On the other hand, Winn, which relates similarly to managing a multi-user CAD environment, does teach wherein the workstation database includes a plurality of workstation entries (“Certain part files can include meta information regarding how the components are interfaced with each other. Meta information includes any nonCAx format information regarding a given part file, feature interface, or other aspect of a component within the CAx database.” Meta information is interpreted as workstation entries.) (e.g., column 7, lines 40-45).
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines one or more master properties associated with a set of the reference CAD objects from among the plurality of reference CAD objects (“Meta information includes any nonCAx format information regarding a given part file, feature interface, or other aspect of a component within the CAx database.”) (e.g., column 7, lines 42-45).
identify a given workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries associated with the given local CAD file (“Certain part files can include meta information regarding how the components are interfaced with each other. Meta information includes any nonCAx format information regarding a given part file, feature interface, or other aspect of a component within the CAx database.” Including meta information is interpreted as identifying meta information associated with a CAD file, wherein the meta information is interpreted as a workstation entry.) (e.g., column 7, lines 40-45).
However, neither Bowman nor Winn teaches wherein the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof.
On the other hand, Lee, which relates to managing workstations in a manufacturing facility, does teach wherein the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof (“Each workstation 14 is equipped with tools 18 so as to accomplish a predetermined task [...] The checklist 28 includes a list and sequence of tasks for each workstation 14. The checklist 28 may be updated when the tools 18 are reconfigured.” The checklist is interpreted as comprising properties associating one or more tools with a workstation.) (e.g., paragraphs [0017] and [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Bowman with Winn. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Bowman teaches a system for multi-user CAx design comprising a database. However, Bowman does not specifically teach wherein the database comprises workstation entries associated with the database of CAD objects. On the other hand, Winn, which relates similarly to a system for multi-user CAx design, does teach a system comprising meta data files, interpreted as workstation entries. As both Bowman and Winn teach a system for multi-user CAx design, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the system of Bowman with the meta data files of Winn. In combination, the system of Bowman and the meta data of Winn merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination and predictably providing further information about reference CAD files. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bowman with Winn in order to track non-CAx related information associated with reference CAD objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Bowman in view of Winn with Lee. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143 (I)(A). Bowman in view of Winn teaches a system for multi-user CAx design comprising a database with workstation entries. However, the Bowman-Winn combination does not appear to specifically teach system wherein the workstation entries comprise tools associated with the workstation. On the other hand, Lee, which relates to managing manufacturing workstations, does teach workstation entries comprising tool information. Furthermore, Bowman and Winn disclose that CAx and CAD tools comprise manufacturing planning tools (e.g., Bowman, paragraph [0028]; Winn, column 4, lines 10-14). As Lee provides such a manufacturing planning tool, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the tool information of Lee with the database of workstation entries as disclosed by the Bowman-Winn combination. In combination, the tool information of Lee and the database of workstation entries in Bowman-Winn merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the modified reference of Bowman in view of Winn with Lee in order to further store tool information associated with each workstation.
Regarding Claim 2, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 1. Bowman further teaches wherein each reference CAD object from among the plurality of reference CAD objects is associated with one or more CAD graphic formats (“The computing devices 126 may enable graphical editing and viewing of CAD models,” wherein the devices are interpreted as enabling graphical editing using graphic formats.) (e.g., paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 2. Bowman further teaches wherein the one or more CAD graphic formats includes a two-dimensional (2D) graphic type, a three-dimensional (3D) graphic type, an augmented reality graphic type, a virtual reality graphic type, or a combination thereof (“Rendering (320) a local view may include creating a graphical representation of CAD data in a local model datastore on a display for viewing by a user. The graphical rendering may be a 2D or 3D rendering from a variety of perspectives to facilitate editing.”) (e.g., paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 4, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 1. Bowman further teaches wherein the location-based information is further based on an area of the workstation, a perimeter of the workstation, position coordinates of the workstation, or a combination thereof (“In one embodiment, the CAD model server 165 ensures that users can only access data that corresponds to geometries, elements, and features within an editing region assigned to that user.” The editing region is interpreted as comprising an area, perimeter, and position associated with a user, the user being associated with a workstation.) (e.g., paragraph [0038]).
Regarding Claim 5, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein selectively modifying the set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on the comparison further comprises adding additional tools from among the one or more tools (“the PC 24 may be changed so as to reconfigure the tools 18 at each workstation 14,” wherein reconfiguring the tools is interpreted as comprising adding additional tools.) (e.g., paragraph [0023]).
Bowman further teaches additional workpieces from among the one or more workpieces, or a combination thereof associated with the given workstation entry (“Enabling 640 users to select, reserve, lock and release editing regions and features may include providing interface elements that facilitate selecting, reserving, locking (i.e. assigning) and releasing editing regions.” Selecting and editing is interpreted as comprising adding additional workpieces.) (e.g., paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein selectively modifying the set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on the comparison further comprises replacing a set of tools from among the one or more tools (“the PC 24 may be changed so as to reconfigure the tools 18 at each workstation 14,” wherein reconfiguring the tools is interpreted as comprising replacing a set of tools.) (e.g., paragraph [0023]).
Bowman further teaches a set of workpieces from among the one or more workpieces, or a combination thereof associated with the given workstation entry (“Enabling 640 users to select, reserve, lock and release editing regions and features may include providing interface elements that facilitate selecting, reserving, locking (i.e. assigning) and releasing editing regions.” Selecting and editing is interpreted as comprising replacing a set of workpieces.) (e.g., paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 7, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein selectively modifying the set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on the comparison further comprises deleting a set of tools from among the one or more tools (“the PC 24 may be changed so as to reconfigure the tools 18 at each workstation 14,” wherein reconfiguring the tools is interpreted as comprising deleting a set of tools.) (e.g., paragraph [0023]).
Bowman further teaches a set of workpieces from among the one or more workpieces, or a combination thereof associated with the given workstation entry (“Enabling 640 users to select, reserve, lock and release editing regions and features may include providing interface elements that facilitate selecting, reserving, locking (i.e. assigning) and releasing editing regions.” Selecting and editing is interpreted as comprising deleting a set of workpieces.) (e.g., paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 8, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 1. Bowman further teaches wherein selecting the given local CAD file is further based on an input received by a given client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices (“The user interface module 210 may provide a user with a variety of interface elements that facilitate concurrent collaborative editing [...] The user interface module 210 may also respond to mouse events, keyboard events, and the like.”) (e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 9, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 1. Bowman further teaches wherein the server computing device and the plurality of client computing devices are communicably coupled by an application programming interface (API) (“The inter-network 130 may facilitate electronic communications between the various workstations and server,” wherein an API may be used to facilitate communication between the workstations and server.) (e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 10, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 1. Winn further teaches wherein the plurality of workstation entries are stored as text-based files (“By way of example, the meta interface can be a specification sheet saved in a document or text format, a slide show format, a .pdf format, or any other computer information format.”) (e.g., column 7, lines 45-48).
Regarding Claim 11, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The distributed CAD system of Claim 10. Winn further teaches wherein the text-based files are comma-separated values (CSV) files (“By way of example, the meta interface can be a specification sheet saved in a document or text format, a slide show format, a .pdf format, or any other computer information format.” The other computer information formats may comprise CSV files.) (e.g., column 7, lines 45-48).
Regarding Claim 12, Bowman teaches A method for managing a distributed computer-aided design (CAD) system (“FIG. 1B is a block diagram of one example of a multi-user CAD system 150 that is consistent with one or more embodiments of the claimed invention.”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
comprising a server computing device communicably coupled to a plurality of client computing devices (“Each workstation 125 may include a separate computing device 126 and a communications device 127 or the computing device and communications device may [be] integrated into the workstation 125.”) (e.g., paragraph [0031]).
the server computing device comprising a reference CAD object database and a workstation database (“As depicted, the multi-user CAD system 150 includes a CAD data store 152, a storage server 155, an assignment server 160, a CAD model server 165, an authentication server 170, one or more traffic consolidation servers 175, an internetwork 180, and a plurality of workstations”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
each client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices comprises a client database, the client database comprises one or more local CAD files (“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of one example of a multi-user CAD apparatus 200 that is consistent with one or more embodiments of the claimed invention [...] Each of the modules may reside on a single computing device (i.e. node) or be collaboratively partitioned onto multiple devices or nodes. For example, the depicted embodiment includes a client node 200a [...] In one embodiment, the local model datastore 220a contains local copies of CAD models managed by the global model datastore 220b.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0044], [0045], and [0049]).
the one or more local CAD files defining one or more local properties associated with each of the one or more local CAD files and location-based information associated with each of the one or more local CAD files (“In one embodiment, the local model datastore 220a contains local copies of CAD models managed by the global model datastore 220b [...] the change control module 230 ensures that users can only access data that corresponds to parts, regions, geometries, elements and features that have been assigned to the user. All other users may be blocked by the change control module 230 from accessing data corresponding to the parts, regions, geometries, elements or features within the editing region that has been assigned to that user.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0049] and [0050]).\
the method comprising: determining, by the server computing device, whether an input received by a given client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices satisfies a file comparison condition (“The change control module 230 controls user access to data managed by the model datastore 220. In one embodiment, the change control module 230 ensures that users can only access data that corresponds to parts, regions, geometries, elements and features that have been assigned to the user." User access is interpreted as input received by a client, and determining that a user can access assigned data is interpreted as input satisfying a file comparison condition.)
wherein: the reference CAD object database comprises a plurality of reference CAD objects (“The CAD data store 152 stores and retrieves files or other units of data such as database records that correspond to a CAD model of an engineering object.”) (e.g., paragraph [0037]).
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines […] location-based information of a workstation within a manufacturing environment (“Controlling user access to CAD data may include partitioning an engineering object into one or more editing regions [...] The region assignment tools 730 may provide a variety of information relative to collaborative editing such as user identifiers 731, user names 732 and locations 733, a region name 734, a user priority 735, and a layer indicator 736. The user names 731 may correspond to a particular user identifier 724.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0038] and [0097]).
and selecting, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, select a given local CAD file from among the one or more CAD files (“The object rendering module 212 renders the engineering object on a display for viewing by the user. The user interface module 210 may overlay interface elements such as control points on the rendered engineering object.) (e.g., paragraph [0047]).
selectively modifying, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, a set of one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry based on a comparison between the set of one or more master properties and a set of one or more local properties associated with the given local CAD file (“The change control module 230 controls user access to data managed by the model datastore 220. In one embodiment, the change control module 230 ensures that users can only access data that corresponds to parts, regions, geometries, elements and features that have been assigned to the user.”) (e.g., paragraph [0050]).
and selectively modifying, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, a set of location-based information defined by the given workstation entry based on a comparison between the location- based information and a set of location-based information associated with the given local CAD file (“The local change control module 230a may generate feature changes for the CAD model corresponding to editing sequences performed by the user, such as keyboard input, mouse movements, or the like. Generating feature changes from editing sequences facilitates change control for the features [...] The update module 250 propagates changes to editable features between nodes of the multi-user CAD system [...] In the depicted embodiment, valid changes to a local copy of an engineering model are communicated by the client update module 250a to the server update module 250b within the server node 200b.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0050] and [0054]).
However, Bowman does not appear to specifically teach wherein the workstation database includes a plurality of workstation entries; each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines one or more master properties associated with a set of the reference CAD objects from among the plurality of reference CAD objects […] and the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof [and] identifying, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, a given workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries associated with the given local CAD file;
On the other hand, Winn, which relates similarly to managing a multi-user CAD environment, does teach wherein the workstation database includes a plurality of workstation entries (“Certain part files can include meta information regarding how the components are interfaced with each other. Meta information includes any nonCAx format information regarding a given part file, feature interface, or other aspect of a component within the CAx database.” Meta information is interpreted as workstation entries.) (e.g., column 7, lines 40-45).
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries defines one or more master properties associated with a set of the reference CAD objects from among the plurality of reference CAD objects (“Meta information includes any nonCAx format information regarding a given part file, feature interface, or other aspect of a component within the CAx database.”) (e.g., column 7, lines 42-45).
identifying, by the server computing device and in response to the input satisfying the file comparison condition, a given workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries associated with the given local CAD file; (“Certain part files can include meta information regarding how the components are interfaced with each other. Meta information includes any nonCAx format information regarding a given part file, feature interface, or other aspect of a component within the CAx database.” Including meta information is interpreted as identifying meta information associated with a CAD file, wherein the meta information is interpreted as a workstation entry.) (e.g., column 7, lines 40-45).
However, neither Bowman nor Winn teaches wherein the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof.
On the other hand, Lee, which relates to managing workstations in a manufacturing facility, does teach wherein the one or more master properties include one or more tools associated with the workstation, one or more workpieces associated with the workstation, or a combination thereof (“Each workstation 14 is equipped with tools 18 so as to accomplish a predetermined task [...] The checklist 28 includes a list and sequence of tasks for each workstation 14. The checklist 28 may be updated when the tools 18 are reconfigured.” The checklist is interpreted as comprising properties associating one or more tools with a workstation.) (e.g., paragraphs [0017] and [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Bowman with Winn for the same reasons as in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Bowman in view of Winn with Lee for the same reasons as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 13-20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-8 and 10, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bramberger (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0348658 A1) teaches a method for providing a workpiece representation at a production station using a database to store a data record for the original model of the workpiece.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189