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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 22, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that Lee fails to teach the claim 1 limitation of "converting one or more features of at least one of the first image file or the second image file for use within an interaction environment based, at least in part, on one or more capabilities of the interaction environment". Specifically, Applicant argues that this limitation is not taught by Lee “because the cited portions of Lee do not provide an indication that a master file is selected or otherwise ‘based . . . on one or more capabilities of the interaction environment’”. It should be noted that this particular limitation does not contain any selecting language. Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Lee does teach this limitation because the first and second image files are first neutralized before being combined into the master file so that the master file will be compatible with the interaction environment of Lee in order to allow the collaborators to collaborate. The reason that the files are first converted into the neutral formal is so that they are compatible with the interactive environment. Otherwise, the interactive collaborating system of Lee would be useless. In other words, it would not make sense to convert the files into formats that are incompatible with the interaction environment of Lee. Therefore, Lee does teach this limitation because the neutralization is based on the capabilities of the interaction environment.
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the claim 1 limitation of “determining, for an earlier version of the selected individual component, that a number of conflicts is less than the one or more conflicts”. In the final Office Action, the examiner cited paras. [0038] and [0042] as teaching this limitation because these portions of Lee disclose that the project coordinator workstation 104 organizes the files to maintain version control, records the history of changes to the files and controls access to the files by the collaborators. This recorded history would include the interference/clash reports for different versions of the CAD files and of the neutral master file. Since the project coordinator workstation 104 maintains version control and has access to these reports, and since the number and type of clashes are contained in the reports, the project coordinator workstation 104 has knowledge of, and therefore determines, whether an earlier version of the 3D model contains more or fewer clashes than later versions for each of the clashing components. Applicant argues that “[m]aintaining version control is not equivalent to an active evaluation and comparison between different versions.” It should be noted that this particular claim limitation does not contain language about actively evaluating and comparing different versions. Again, Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation of "responsive to the determining, causing the selected individual component to revert to the earlier version", Applicant argues that the cited portions of Segev do not teach this limitation and that the final Office Action did not provide sufficient particularity of the portions of Segev relied on by the examiner. Specifically, Applicant argues that Segev discloses making modifications in line with specified rules, but not active reversion to a different version of a file.
The BRI for this limitation is that the system and method of the present disclosure evaluate revision history, determine which versions have more or fewer conflicts and provide some type of notification to the contributors to allow them to decide whether to revert back to the earlier version or whether the changes resulting in the additional conflicts are worth keeping. Support for this interpretation is found in paras. [0017] and [0039] of the present disclosure, which are the only portions of the present disclosure that discuss reversion to an earlier design.
Lee discloses that the project coordinator workstation 104 organizes the files to maintain version control, records the history of changes to the files and controls access to the files by the collaborators. This recorded history includes the interference/clash reports for different versions of the CAD files and of the neutral master file. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose that the workstation 104 compares design versions to determine which versions have a greater or lesser number of conflicts and provides a notification to the collaborators to allow them to determine whether they should revert to an earlier version that has fewer conflicts. Segev also does not explicitly disclose this limitation. For this reason, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Segev has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection is set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 BRI of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
The BRIs in light of the specification for certain terms in the claims are provided below.
Should applicant wish different definitions, Applicant should point to the portions of the specification that clearly show a different definition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2014/0180641 A1 to Lee et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”) in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2014/0040840 A1 to Hysong et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hysong”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a computer-implemented method (para. [0023], Fig. 1), comprising:
receiving a first image file associated with a first native source format, generated using a first modality (the BRI for “native source format” is that it is the format of a file created by a particular software program such as a CAD program and that first and second native source formats may or may not be compatible with one another; para. [0024], Fig. 1: “[a]t step 110, the application receives CAD files relating to the design. The CAD files may comprise multiple files with varying formats. For example, the files may include electrical, mechanical or structural models which contribute to the overall design. Each of file may have a different format.”; see also para. [0039]: “The design files may have format native to each of the collaborator.”);
receiving a second image file associated with a second native source format (para. [0024] and step 110 of Fig. 1 of Lee disclose receiving multiple CAD files that can be of different native source formats, such as a mechanical CAD file and an electrical CAD file; one of these image files of Lee constitutes the first image file and another of these image files of Lee constitutes the second image file);
converting one or more features of at least one of the first image file or the second image file for use within an interaction environment based, at least in part, on one or more capabilities of the interaction environment (para. [0024] and Fig. 1, step 115 of Lee disclose combining the first and second image files into a combined master file for rendering, which constitutes converting one or more features of at least one of the first image file or the second image file for use within an interaction environment: “[a]ccordingly, at step 115, the received files are converted into a common format, i.e., neutralized. The neutral format can be any format suitable for the application. After neutralization, the various design files may be combined to form a master file (i.e., compiled model)”; the interaction environment is shown in Fig. 4, which depicts collaborators 412 and 414 that generate the first and second image files and a project coordinator workstation 410 that combines the first and second image files into the master file, as discussed in paras. [0037]-[0039]; the project coordinator workstation 410 stores the first and second image files and the master file in storage and may grant access to the collaborators 412 and 414 to allow them to access and interact with the first and second image files and with the master file, as discussed in para. [0038]);
rendering a combined visualization of the first image file and the second image file within the interaction environment, including the converted one or more features of the at least one of the first image file or the second image file (the BRI for this limitation is that it means generating a 3D model in which the first and second image files are combined into a visual presentation that is presented in a 3D environment such that one or more users can interact with the model in the 3D environment; Lee discloses this limitation; see para. [0024] and Fig. 1, step 115, which discloses combining the first and second image files into a combined master file for rendering: “[a]ccordingly, at step 115, the received files are converted into a common format, i.e., neutralized. The neutral format can be any format suitable for the application. After neutralization, the various design files may be combined to form a master file (i.e., compiled model)”);
detecting, within the combined visualization, one or more individual components forming the combined visualization (the BRI for the term “component” is that it means an element of a 3D combined visualization; para. [0026], Fig. 1B step 152 of Lee disclose segmenting the compiled 3D model comprising the master file into segments for clash detection, where each segment includes one or more components, and placing bounding boxes around each component, which constitutes detecting, within the combined visualization, one or more components forming the combined visualization);
performing, based at least in part on a set of evaluation procedures, an automated assembly evaluation on the one or more individual components (Fig. 1B, steps 154 and 156 and para. [0027] disclose an automated assembly evaluation performed to detect clashes based on the physical proximity of components or interference between components);
providing, for a selected individual component, an evaluation result including one or more conflicts associated with the selected individual component (para. [0027] and Fig. 1B, step 158: “[f]inally, the clash detection results are reported at step 158”; see also para. [0042] and Fig. 5 disclosing the combined visualization being displayed along with the clash detection results; see also para. [0042]: “[t]he user may select other identified clashes from the selection box for visual display”; the “clashes” in Lee constitute “conflicts”);
determining, for an earlier version of the selected individual component, that a number of conflicts is less than the one or more conflicts (para. [0038] discloses that the project coordinator workstation 104 organizes the files to maintain version control, records the history of changes to the files and controls access to the files by the collaborators 412 and 414; this recorded history would include the interference/clash reports for different versions of the CAD files and of the neutral master file; para. [0042] discloses that the clash detection report includes “different fields selected by the project coordinator. In an exemplary embodiment, the clash report includes a clash list, classification of the clashing objects (e.g., window, door, etc.), the actual and desired tolerance between the clashing objects and the priority assigned to each clash (e.g., low, medium or critical)”; since the project coordinator workstation 104 maintains version control and has access to these reports, and since the number and type of clashes are contained in the reports, the project coordinator workstation 104 has knowledge of, and therefore determines, whether an earlier version of the 3D model contains more or fewer clashes than later versions for each of the clashing components);
responsive to the determining, causing the selected individual component to revert to the earlier version (as indicated above, the BRI for this limitation is that it means determining whether an earlier version has fewer conflicts than a later or current version and providing some type of notification to the contributors to the design that the earlier version has more or fewer conflicts to allow them to decide whether to revert back to the earlier version or whether the changes are worth keeping considering the additional conflicts; support for this interpretation is found in paras. [0017] and [0039], which are the only portions of the present disclosure that discuss reversion to an earlier design; Lee does not explicitly disclose this limitation); and
rendering a second combined visualization including the earlier version of at least one of the first image file or the second image file (para. [0042] and Fig. 5 of Lee disclose rendering the combined visualization along with identified clashes and displaying them on a display device).
As indicated above, Lee does not explicitly disclose the limitation of “responsive to the determining, causing the selected individual component to revert to the earlier version”. As indicated above, the BRI for this limitation is that it means determining whether an earlier version has fewer conflicts than a later or current version and providing some type of notification to the contributors to the design that the earlier version has more or fewer conflicts to allow them to decide whether to revert back to the earlier version or whether the changes are worth keeping considering the additional conflicts.
Hysong, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a conflict detection system 100 that includes a design conflict component 125 (Fig. 1) that compares a current version of a design with an earlier version of the design to determine which design has fewer conflicts, and responsive to determining that the earlier design has fewer conflicts, using the earlier version (para. [0077]: “[s]imilarly, multiple designs can be processed using the design conflict component 125 and later compared as to conflicts within the designs. For example, the design conflict component 125 or a user may be able to objectively compare one design to another based on the conflicts detected. This can illustrate which design is best for a certain purpose or function. The compared designs may be an earlier version of a design and a later version of a design or may be separately developed designs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system of Lee based on the teachings of Hysong to cause the system of Lee to determine whether an earlier or later version of a design contains fewer or a greater number of conflicts and notifying the collaborators to allow them to decide whether to revert to an earlier version of the design. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure that the model that is currently being collaborated on in Lee has the fewest number of clashes or the fewest number of clashes of particular types and/or of a critical nature. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying software to count the number clashes contained in the clash reports for the current version and previous versions and causing the system to revert to an earlier version that has fewer clashes than the current version).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses that the automated assembly evaluation is an interference check (the BRI for “interference check” is that this is a check for regions where object boundaries cross; Lee et al. discloses that clash detection includes checking whether object boundaries cross, para. [0027]: “Clash detection may also be used to identify physical interference between components. For example, a particular design may require sufficient repair space adjacent a mechanical unit. Clash detection can identify whether nearby objects protrude in the clearance space of the mechanical unit”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses that the first native source format is a mechanical computer aided drafting (CAD) software file and the second native source
format is an electrical CAD software file (para. [0024]: “[a]t step 110, the application receives CAD files relating to the design. The CAD files may comprise multiple files with varying formats. For example, the files may include electrical, mechanical or structural models which contribute to the overall design. Each of file may have a different format”; see also para. [0034]: “[t]he first file and the second file may have different, incompatible and vendor-specific formats”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses that the selected individual component is one of a first individual component or a second individual component (para. [0010] discloses identifying “an interference between at least one of the first plurality of components and one of the second plurality of components” and reporting “the identified interference”). Since Lee is determining clashes between components of the first and second CAD files, such as a clash between an electrical component in an electrical CAD file and a mechanical component in a mechanical CAD file, Lee discloses determining the first individual component according to the first image file and determining the second individual component according to the second image file. Lee determines a version difference between the first individual component and the second individual component because the project coordinator workstation 104 maintains version control and records history of clashes between components of the first and second CAD files, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the project coordinator workstation 104 determines version differences between components in the files via the recorded clash report history, such as spatial differences between components in the first and second files that lead to a clash in an earlier version and avoided a clash in a later version.
Lee does not explicitly disclose providing an alert “corresponding to reversion to the earlier version”. The BRI for this limitation, based on para. [0017] of the present disclosure, is that it means providing an alert to a user that is related in some way to the earlier version.
As indicated above, Hysong discloses that the design conflict component 125 compares the number of conflicts in an earlier version to the number of conflicts in a later version and provides a notification to allow to decide “which design is best for a certain purpose or function” (para. [0077]; see also para. [0074] and Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system of Lee based on the teachings of Hysong to cause the system of Lee to compare the number of conflicts in the earlier version and the current or later version and to display the results as a notification to the user as to the potential desirability of reverting to the earlier design as taught by Hysong. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to alert the user that the model that is currently being collaborated on in Lee is or could be using a version of the user’s input image files that has the fewest number of clashes. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying software to count the number clashes contained in the clash reports for the current version and previous versions and causing the system to alert the user that an earlier version has fewer clashes than the current version).
Regarding claim 8, to the extent that claim 8 recites limitations that are recited in claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 8.
Lee et al. discloses a system, comprising:
at least one processor (para. [0010]); and
memory (para. [0010]) including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
render a combined virtualization of a plurality of input files, the plurality of input files including first image data from a first input file and second image data from a second input file, wherein the first image data and the second image data are associated with different source file formats and one or more features of at least one of the first image data or the second image data are converted based, at least in part, on one or more capabilities of an interaction environment (see rejection of claim 1);
provide an interface for interaction with the combined virtualization associated with the interaction environment (see rejection of claim 1 regarding the interaction environment shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of Lee);
receive a selection of a component of the combined virtualization, the component being associated with one of the first image file or the second image file (one or more of the processors P1-P4 shown in Fig. 4 receive a selection of segments of the master file that contain components of the compiled 3D model comprising the master file (para. [0040]); during the segmentation process, the compiled 3D model is segmented for clash detection during which components are selected and bounding boxes are placed around each component (para. [0026]); during clash detection, the threads corresponding to the bounding boxes (Fig. 2) are processed in parallel by the processor P1-P4 (Fig. 4) to detect clashes.);
provide build information for the component, including an indication of conflict persistence over one or more versions of the first image file or the second image file including the component (the BRI for the term “build information” is that this refers to information identifying a version of the component; in Lee, build information for one or more components of the compiled 3D model comprising the master file is provided to the workstation 410 of the project coordinator to allow the project coordinator to maintain version control, record history of changes and apply any other project management rules, para. [0038]; regarding the indication of conflict persistence over one or more versions of the first image file or the second image file including the component, para. [0038] discloses that the project coordinator workstation 104 organizes the files to maintain version control, records the history of changes to the files and controls access to the files by the collaborators 412 and 414; this recorded history would include the interference/clash reports for different versions of the CAD files and of the neutral master file; para. [0042] discloses that the clash detection report includes “different fields selected by the project coordinator. In an exemplary embodiment, the clash report includes a clash list, classification of the clashing objects (e.g., window, door, etc.), the actual and desired tolerance between the clashing objects and the priority assigned to each clash (e.g., low, medium or critical)”; since the project coordinator workstation 104 maintains version control and has access to these reports, and since the number and type of clashes are contained in the reports, the reports and the recorded history of the reports provide the project coordinator 104 with the ability to ascertain conflict persistence over one or more versions of the first image file or the second image file including the component; however, Lee does not explicitly disclose providing an indication of conflict persistence over one or more versions of the first image file or the second image file);
select a version of the first image file or the second image file with a smallest number of conflicts (the BRI for this limitation is that it means providing some type of notification to the contributors to the design that the earlier version or the current version has more or fewer conflicts to allow them to decide whether to keep the current version or select the earlier version; support for this interpretation is found in paras. [0017] and [0039], which are the only portions of the present disclosure that discuss reversion to an earlier design; Lee does not explicitly disclose this limitation; Lee does not explicitly disclose this limitation); and
render a second combined visualization including the version of the first image file or the second image file with the smallest number of conflicts (para. [0042] and Fig. 5 of Lee disclose rendering and displaying the combined visualization).
As indicated above, Lee does not explicitly disclose the “select a version” limitation. Hysong discloses a conflict detection system 100 that includes a design conflict component 125 (Fig. 1) that compares a current version of a design with an earlier version of the design to determine which design has fewer conflicts, and providing a notification to a user to allow the user to select the an earlier design that has fewer conflicts (para. [0077]: “[s]imilarly, multiple designs can be processed using the design conflict component 125 and later compared as to conflicts within the designs. For example, the design conflict component 125 or a user may be able to objectively compare one design to another based on the conflicts detected. This can illustrate which design is best for a certain purpose or function. The compared designs may be an earlier version of a design and a later version of a design or may be separately developed designs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system of Lee based on the teachings of Hysong to cause the system of Lee to determine whether an earlier or later version of a design contains fewer or a greater number of conflicts and to provide a notification to the collaborators to allow them to decide whether to select an earlier version of the design. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure that the model that is currently being collaborated on in Lee has the fewest number of clashes or the fewest number of clashes of particular types and/or of a critical nature. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying software to count the number clashes contained in the clash reports for the current version and previous versions and causing the system to revert to an earlier version that has fewer clashes than the current version).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses that the plurality of input files correspond to different native software sources (para. [0024]: “[a]t step 110, the application receives CAD files relating to the design. The CAD files may comprise multiple files with varying formats. For example, the files may include electrical, mechanical or structural models which contribute to the overall design. Each of file may have a different format”; see also para. [0039]: “[t]he design files may have format native to each of the collaborator. To compile a master file, project coordinator 410 converts the collaborators' files into neutral format file….”; see also para. [0034]: “[t]he first file and the second file may have different, incompatible and vendor-specific formats”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses that the system (Fig. 4) comprises a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, the BRI for the term “conflict” means mechanical, electrical and other types of interferences between components of at least two input files. Lee discloses that the clash detection algorithm causes the system to identify a conflict between the first and second input files (para. [0027]: “[c]lash detection may also be used to identify physical interference between components”); and
provide a notification associated with the conflict (para. [0027] and Fig. 1B, step 158: “[f]inally, the clash detection results are reported at step 158.”; see also para. [0042] and Fig. 5 disclosing the combined visualization being displayed along with the clash detection results).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses that the conflict is at least one of an interference, a version divergence, or a rule violation (para. [0027]: “[c]lash detection may also be used to identify physical interference between components”).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to retrieve a set of rules associated with the conflict (in Lee et al., project management rules are applied to detect conflicts, referred to as “clashes” or “collisions” in Lee et al. (paras. [0038] and [0029]). The project coordinator using workstation 410 applies the rules to determine whether conflicts exist, such as a physical interference between components of two input files that have been combined into the master file (para. [0027]; see also para. [0029] discussing collision detection between components). Using workstation 410, the project coordinator can alter the rules that are applied to identify conflicts (para. [0041]: “[i]n another exem-plary embodiment, the project coordinator may reset clash detection variables. That is, the clearance distance between different objects may be changed in real-time to observe the effect on the 3D model”).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to execute an automated assembly evaluation on the combined virtualization (paras. [0027]-[0032], the clash and collision detection processes are automated assembly evaluations).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of design files, from a plurality of different native source programs, the plurality of design files including a first design file with first image data and a second design file with second image data, wherein the first image data and the second image data are associated with different native file formats and one or more features of at least one of the first image data or the second image data are converted based, at least in part, on one or more capabilities of an interaction environment receiving a first image file associated with a first native source format, generated using a first modality (see the rejection of claim 1 regarding the disclosure of these limitations in Lee);
generating, from the plurality of design files, a common design build including the at least one of the first image data or the second image data after being converted (see the rejection of claim 1 regarding the disclosure of these limitations in Lee);
rendering the common design build within the interaction environment (see the rejection of claim 1 regarding the disclosure of the combined visualization in Lee);
performing one or more diagnostic evaluations of the common design build (see the rejection of claim 1 regarding the disclosure in Lee of performing the automated assembly evaluation, which is a diagnostic evaluation);
determining a selected component of the common design build has a first number of conflicts with an associated component of the common design build (para. [0027] and Fig. 1B, step 158: “[f]inally, the clash detection results are reported at step 158”; see also para. [0042] and Fig. 5 disclosing the combined visualization being displayed along with the clash detection results; see also para. [0042]: “[t]he user may select other identified clashes from the selection box for visual display”; the “clashes” in Lee constitute “conflicts”);
determining an earlier version of at least one of the first image data or the second image data including the selected component has a second number of conflicts with the associated component of the common design build, the second number of conflicts being smaller than the first number of conflicts (the BRI for this limitation is comparing the current version with an earlier version and determining from the comparison whether the earlier version has a fewer conflicts than the current version; para. [0038] discloses that the project coordinator workstation 104 organizes the files to maintain version control, records the history of changes to the files and controls access to the files by the collaborators 412 and 414; this recorded history would include the interference/clash reports for different versions of the CAD files and of the neutral master file; para. [0042] discloses that the clash detection report includes “different fields selected by the project coordinator. In an exemplary embodiment, the clash report includes a clash list, classification of the clashing objects (e.g., window, door, etc.), the actual and desired tolerance between the clashing objects and the priority assigned to each clash (e.g., low, medium or critical)”; since the project coordinator workstation 104 maintains version control and has access to these reports, and since the number and type of clashes are contained in the reports, the project coordinator workstation 104 has knowledge of whether an earlier version of the 3D model contains more or fewer clashes than later versions for each of the clashing components; however, Lee does not explicitly disclose comparing the current version with an earlier version and determining from the comparison whether the earlier version has a fewer conflicts than the current version); and
rendering a second common design build including the earlier version of at least one of the first image data or the second image data (see the rejection of claim 1 regarding the disclosure in Lee of rendering the combined visualization).
As indicated above, Lee does not explicitly disclose comparing the current version with an earlier version and determining from the comparison whether the earlier version has a fewer conflicts than the current version. As indicated above, Hysong discloses a conflict detection system 100 that includes a design conflict component 125 (Fig. 1) that compares a current version of a design with an earlier version of the design to determine which design has fewer conflicts (para. [0077]: “[s]imilarly, multiple designs can be processed using the design conflict component 125 and later compared as to conflicts within the designs. For example, the design conflict component 125 or a user may be able to objectively compare one design to another based on the conflicts detected. This can illustrate which design is best for a certain purpose or function. The compared designs may be an earlier version of a design and a later version of a design or may be separately developed designs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system of Lee based on the teachings of Hysong to cause the system of Lee to determine whether an earlier or later version of a design contains fewer or a greater number of conflicts. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure that the model that is currently being collaborated on in Lee has the fewest number of clashes or the fewest number of clashes of particular types and/or of a critical nature. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying software to count the number clashes contained in the clash reports for the current version and previous versions and causing the system to revert to an earlier version that has fewer clashes than the current version).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses that the method includes:
receiving a selection of the selected component forming the common design build of a component of the common design build (para. [0042], the clash detection application running on a web browser as shown in Fig. 4 receives a selection by the user of a clashing component contained in the clash report);
identifying the selected component based on one or more of a feature evaluation of the selected component or a build list (the foreground box in Fig. 5 identifies the selected clashing component, para. [0042]);
determining a version of the first design file or the second design file including the selected component (para. [0038], the project coordinator 410 determines the version corresponding to the displayed clash report because the project coordinator maintains version control and records version history, which includes the clash reports for each version that are displayed in the manner shown in Fig. 5); and
providing, as an overlay, a visualization of the selected component in accordance with the version (para. [0042], Fig. 5, the displayed foreground corresponding to the clash selected by the user is an overlap of the clash between the clashing components: “the clash detection report provides a 3D visual representation of the selected clash. The foreground dialog box states that there is an interference between a slab and a plate. The user may select other identified clashes from the selection box for visual display. The menu of the foreground dialog also provides action buttons including, zoom, 3D, snapshot, etc.”).
Regarding claim 18, as indicated above, Lee discloses that the project coordinator 410 determines first and second versions of design files because Lee discloses that the project coordinator maintains version control and records version history, which includes the clash reports for each version. Lee does not explicitly disclose identifying differences between the versions, although this information is available to the project coordinator 410. Lee also discloses performing clash detection evaluation for each version. However, Lee does not disclose identifying differences between different version.
Hysong discloses comparing different versions of the designs to determine differences between the version, such as differences between the number of conflicts each version has (para. [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system of Lee based on the teachings of Hysong to cause the system of Lee to determine differences between an earlier version and a later version of a design such as the difference between the number of conflicts each version has. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure that the model that is currently being collaborated on in Lee has the fewest number of clashes or the fewest number of clashes of particular types and/or of a critical nature. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying software to count the number clashes contained in the clash reports for the current version and previous versions and causing the system to revert to an earlier version that has fewer clashes than the current version).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses that the project coordinator recommends one version over the other because Lee discloses that the project coordinator has access to the clash reports for the different versions and maintains version control, which means deciding which version the collaborators are allowed to access and modify based, at least in part, on the corresponding clash reports.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 4 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 20.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hysong as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-13 and 15-20 and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,878,424 B2 to Lin et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Lin”).
The combined teachings of Lee and Hysong do not explicitly teach that the automated assembly evaluation is a volumetric difference check. Lin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses performing a volumetric check to determine whether CAD models of robot arms overlap (Col. 5, line 58-Col. 6, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system and methods of Lee to include, as part of the clash detection process, a volumetric check as taught by Lin. Furthermore, para. [0029] of Lee suggests including additional types of checks in performing the clash detection process: “[c]ollision detection is not limited to 2D detection and may include overhead space and other design intangibles.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to improve the robustness of the clash detection process of Lee. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying software to include a volumetric check as part of clash detection).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hysong as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-13 and 15-20 and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2015/0254693 A1 to Kozhukhin et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kozhukhin”).
The BRI for this claim, based on the portion of para. [0023] of the present specification, is that it means identifying components contained in a list and generating an interaction environment based on the identified components.
The combined teachings of Lee and Hysong do not teach that the system accesses a bill of materials and uses the bill of materials to assembly the components of the first and/or second image files together to render the combined visualization within the interaction environment. Kozhukhin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses importing a bill of materials (BOM) into a system from an external source and generating new parts and assembly components from the imported BOM (paras. [0078] and [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system and methods of Lee as modified by the teachings of Hysong further to retrieve a BOM from a source and use the BOM as taught by Kozhukhin in the interaction environment of Lee to create the first and second image files that are subsequently converted into the master file comprising the combined 3D model of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to expedite the 3D model build process. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (including a software module in the system of Lee to identify components listed in the BOM and generate the master file based on the identified components).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hysong as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-13 and 15-20 and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,108,627 B1 to Sowa et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Sowa”).
The BRI for this limitation is that information associated with the user that can be used verify that the user is allowed to access the interaction environment is received by the input manager, based on para. [0021] of the present disclosure.
Lee discloses that the project coordinator decides whether to grant the collaborators access to the individual design files they created or the master file stored in memory 422 (para. 0038]). Therefore, the project coordinator has some mechanism for verifying that the collaborators should be allowed to access the files they created and/or the master file. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose receiving credentials from the collaborators.
Sowa, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a multi-user interaction environment in which multiple users are able to simultaneously access component files stored in a database and view and make modifications to those files. Various aspects of the component designs including features and feature types are associated with one or more levels of access. The level of access that a user has to view and make modifications to the component designs is limited to one or more access lists based on the user’s profile (Col. 6, lines 47-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system and methods of Lee as modified by Hysong further based on the teachings of Sowa so that user profiles are used as credentials as taught by Sowa to determine which collaborators have permission to access the interaction environment and input designs to the interaction environment. A person or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure that only collaborators who should have access to the interaction environment are granted access, which would help the project coordinator maintain version control. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With regard to the “determining” and “presenting” limitations of claim 7, Lee does not explicitly disclose determining one or more evaluation types based at least in part on the preferences for the user or presenting a list of evaluation results corresponding to the one or more evaluation types. In Lee, the project coordinator using workstation 410 sets the evaluation types by controlling the “clash detection variables” (para. [0041]). Therefore, the list of evaluation results (reported clash detection results) that is presented on the display shown in Fig. 5 and described in para. [0042] of Lee is based on the clash detection variables set by the project coordinator, not on preferences that have been set for the user.
The BRI for the term “preferences for the user” is that it means some indication associated with the user that indicates which types of evaluations are performed for the user. For example, the user may be a member of an organization that has determined the types of evaluations that are to be performed for designs inputted into the interaction environment by members of that organization. The rules database 118 of the present disclosure contains rule sets for each organization to be applied during evaluations of designs associated with members of that organization. For example, rules applied during evaluation of electrical designs created by members of one organization may be different from rules applied during evaluation of mechanical designs created by members of another organization. Results of the evaluation that are associated with the “preferences for the user” are presented to that user. Therefore, a mechanical engineer may not be presented with evaluation results for evaluations of the electrical design, and vice versa (See para. [0035] of the present disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system and methods of Lee as modified by Hysong further based on the teachings of Sowa so that user profiles of Sowa are used as preferences for the user by the system of Lee to determine which types of evaluations (clash detection evaluations) will be performed for the user and which types of evaluation results (clash detection results) will be displayed to the user. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure that only evaluations that are relevant to the user’s design are performed for the user and that only the corresponding evaluation results are presented to the user. This, in turn, would reduce processing overhead, conserve processing resources and make the job of the user easier to perform by only presenting evaluation results that are germane to the user. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., modifying software to control the types of evaluations that users are allowed to perform and to control the types of information that is displayed to the users).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hysong as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-13 and 15-20 and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2014/0067333 A1 to Rodney et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Rodney”).
The BRI for retrieving metadata, wherein the build information is associated, at least in part, with the metadata, is based on para. [0019] of the specification of the present disclosure, which reads, “[f]or example, metadata may be evaluated for different components to determine files associated with a revision history to determine which features may have changed over time.” The metadata is used by the input manager 108 to determine which features have changed over time (para. [0017]). As indicated above in the rejection of claim 8, the BRI for the term “build information” is that this refers to information identifying a version of the component.
Lee discloses that the project coordinator organizes “the files so as to maintain version control, record history of changes or apply any other project management rule.” (para. [0038]). Although this suggests that the project coordinator retrieves metadata associated with the build or version of the component, Lee does not explicitly disclose retrieving metadata.
Rodney, in the same field of endeavor, discloses retrieving metadata associated with a CAD drawing and utilizing the metadata to associate the drawing view with a corresponding surface in the drawing view assembly (para. [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to further modify the system of Lee as modified by Segev and Wilson based on the teachings of Rodney such that the workstation 410 of the project coordinator of Lee stores metadata associated with the versions of the design files and the master file stored in memory 422 and retrieves the metadata as taught by Rodney et al. for use in version management and determining change history. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to better perform version management. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying software to retrieve and analyze metadata).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2016/0098494 A1 discloses a collaborative multi-user CAD environment that detects whether a CAD user’s editing of a feature results in an error or conflict, and if so, reverts the feature to an earlier state or version, but that otherwise retains the edited feature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Matt Bella can be reached on (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667