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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 25, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the instant application. Applicants’ amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 26, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 25, 2026, in light of amendments regarding rejections under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that none of the cited references teaches or suggests master identification information comprising unique identification text strings assigned to CAD objects. Regarding this argument, the Examiner disagrees. Winn describes unique feature identifiers to identify geometric objects (e.g., Winn, column 5, lines 22-26) wherein the unique feature identifiers may be stored in text documents (e.g., Winn, column 7, lines 45-51).
Applicant finally argues that none of the cited references teaches or suggests selectively modifying master properties based on a comparison of text of a text based file. Regarding this argument, the Examiner disagrees. Figure 7 of Bowman discloses a textual depiction of one example of a geometry assignment user interface. In particular, figure 7 discloses a priority, represented as text, which is used to determine which parts of a CAD object a user may access and modify. Paragraph [0098] of Bowman further discloses that a user with higher priority can assume control of an editing region assigned to a user with lower priority. The controlled modification of Bowman is thus interpreted as being based on a comparison of the priority text.
An updated rejection under U.S.C 103, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Allocation report module in Claim 10. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) below:
The Claim uses the generic placeholder “module” as a substitute for “means”.
The term “module” is modified by functional language, e.g., an allocation module configured to […] generate…
The term “module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “allocation report module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification recites the functions associated with the allocation report module, the disclosure is devoid of any structures or algorithms that perform the associated functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 comparisonof text of a text-based file defining the set of one or more master properties and text of a text-based file defining the 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 […] The region assignment tools 730 may provide a variety of information relative to collaborative editing such as […] The user priority 735 may be used to determine which user a region should be assigned to if multiple users attempt to edit the same region.” Figure 7 further discloses priority as text; determining which user a region should be assigned is interpreted as comparing text, wherein the priority may be stored in a text file.) (e.g., paragraphs [0050], [0097], and [0098]).
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; each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries further includes master identification information, wherein the master identification information comprises unique identification text strings assigned to CAD objects defined by the one or more master properties, and wherein the unique identification text strings are interpretable by each of a plurality of client computing devices regardless of a type or version of CAD modeling software executed by the client computing devices; [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).
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries further includes master identification information, wherein the master identification information comprises unique identification text strings assigned to CAD objects defined by the one or more master properties (“The term ‘feature’ refers to an instance of a feature type, which can include one or more software commands, or a result of its operation (such as a geometric object). Each feature is represented by a data set and has one or more parameters or attributes, such as a unique feature identifier.” The unique feature identifier is interpreted as master identification information, wherein the unique feature identifier may be stored in a text format.) (e.g., column 5, lines 22-26).
and wherein the unique identification text strings are interpretable by each of a plurality of client computing devices regardless of a type or version of CAD modeling software executed by the client computing devices (“The meta interface can be a specification sheet saved in a document or text format […] or any other computer information format. The meta information is associated with, or connected to, one or more features within the part file containing the meta information.” The text format used to save the meta information is considered to be interpretable by a plurality of computing devices.) (e.g., column 7, lines 45-51).
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, wherein the entries comprise unique identification text strings. 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, wherein the meta data files comprise unique feature identifiers. 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 the server computing device further comprises an allocation report module configured to, in response to selection of the given local CAD file, generate and transmit to at least one client computing device from among the plurality of client computing devices an allocation report associated with the given workstation entry, wherein the allocation report comprises text-based metadata corresponding to the master identification information and the one or more master properties defined by the given workstation entry (“The system 100 includes a host computer 102. The host computer 102 may include one or more of a computer processor, memory, storage means, network device, and input and/or output devices and/or interfaces […] 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 specification sheet is interpreted as an allocation report containing text-based metadata, which may be transmitted or output by the host computer using the network device or output interfaces.) (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 plurality of workstation entries are stored as text-based files and 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 comparisonof text of a text-based file defining the set of one or more master properties and text of a text-based file defining the 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 […] The region assignment tools 730 may provide a variety of information relative to collaborative editing such as […] The user priority 735 may be used to determine which user a region should be assigned to if multiple users attempt to edit the same region.” Figure 7 further discloses priority as text; determining which user a region should be assigned is interpreted as comparing text, wherein the priority may be stored in a text file.) (e.g., paragraphs [0050], [0097], and [0098]).
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; each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries further includes master identification information, wherein the master identification information comprises unique identification text strings assigned to CAD objects defined by the one or more master properties, and wherein the unique identification text strings are interpretable by each of a plurality of client computing devices regardless of a type or version of CAD modeling software executed by the client computing devices [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).
each workstation entry from among the plurality of workstation entries further includes master identification information, wherein the master identification information comprises unique identification text strings assigned to CAD objects defined by the one or more master properties (“The term ‘feature’ refers to an instance of a feature type, which can include one or more software commands, or a result of its operation (such as a geometric object). Each feature is represented by a data set and has one or more parameters or attributes, such as a unique feature identifier.” The unique feature identifier is interpreted as master identification information, wherein the unique feature identifier may be stored in a text format.) (e.g., column 5, lines 22-26).
and wherein the unique identification text strings are interpretable by each of a plurality of client computing devices regardless of a type or version of CAD modeling software executed by the client computing devices (“The meta interface can be a specification sheet saved in a document or text format […] or any other computer information format. The meta information is associated with, or connected to, one or more features within the part file containing the meta information.” The text format used to save the meta information is considered to be interpretable by a plurality of computing devices.) (e.g., column 7, lines 45-51).
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 13-19, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-8, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, Bowman in view of Winn and Lee teaches The method of Claim 12. 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).
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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.
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
Prosecution Insights