DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the applicant’s arguments filed on 4/14/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-18 are amended.
5. Claims 5 and 14 are original.
6. Claims 19-20 are canceled. Claims 21-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recently amended limitation of claim 1 that states
“identifying, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” requires the use of a computer data structure, which cannot fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of an abstract idea, since the mind is not equipped to use a computer data structure to identify a design aspect linked to a feature. (Remarks: pages 9-10)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that in the recent amendment that states “identifying, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the computer aided design program and using the material specification functions as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the examiner notes that that limitation of “identifying a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recently amended limitation that states “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material.” cannot be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 11)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the newly added limitation that states “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature of the design is or how the feature of the design is associated with the selected material. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
11. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that claim 1 improves computer-aided manufacturing technology, which is a technical field of endeavor, by generating a three dimensional model of a part that is manufacturable based on a selected material for the manufacturing. The applicant points to paragraphs [0017] – [0018] of the specification for support as to the claim language of claim 1 reduces the amount of time needed to design a part that is ready for manufacturing and allows for faster design iteration and eliminates the significant amount of design rework that would otherwise be required when a material change in the part design is made. (Remarks: page 11)
12. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that in MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) it states “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Also, the examiner notes that as stated in section 10 of the current office action, the recently added limitation of claim 1 that states “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature of the design is or how the feature of the design is associated with the selected material. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 102
13. The examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly added limitations are shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 10-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper.
Claims 1, 10 and 16
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 10 and 16 are directed towards a method, a system and medium which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “identifying a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a material specification based on a selected material to be used for manufacturing a part, wherein the material specification is a computer data structure that links a design aspect of at least one feature to a respective material manufacturing requirement of the selected material” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “receiving, by the computer aided design program, input that indicates a feature of the part” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “identifying, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the computer aided design program and using the material specification functions as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the limitation of “identifying, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the material requirement is or what the feature of the part is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and providing, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, the feature with the design aspect, for facilitating the manufacturing of the part”, amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the computer aided design program functions as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the limitation of “and providing, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, the feature with the design aspect, for facilitating the manufacturing of the part” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature of the design is or how the feature of the design is associated with the selected material. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language also does not include a computer or components of a computer, but if written with, for example, a processor, the claim language would still not be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, adding the phrase “by a processor” to the claim language, would encompass the processor be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a material specification based on a selected material to be used for manufacturing a part, wherein the material specification is a computer data structure that links a design aspect of at least one feature to a respective material manufacturing requirement of the selected material”, “receiving, by the computer aided design program, input that indicates a feature of the part” and “and providing, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, the feature with the design aspect, for facilitating the manufacturing of the part” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “identifying, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the material requirement is or what the feature of the part is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature of the design is or how the feature of the design is associated with the selected material. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 10
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 10 recites “identifying a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtaining a material specification based on a selected material to be used for manufacturing a part, wherein the material specification is a computer data structure that links a design aspect of at least one feature to a respective material manufacturing requirement of the selected material” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “receiving input that indicates a feature of the part” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “identifying, using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the material specification functions as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the limitation of “identifying, using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the material requirement is or what the feature of the part is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and providing the feature with the design aspect, for facilitating the manufacturing of the part” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature of the design is or how the feature of the design is associated with the selected material. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim language includes the additional elements of a data processing apparatus and medium. The data processing apparatus and medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “obtaining a material specification based on a selected material to be used for manufacturing a part, wherein the material specification is a computer data structure that links a design aspect of at least one feature to a respective material manufacturing requirement of the selected material”, “receiving input that indicates a feature of the part” and “and providing the feature with the design aspect, for facilitating the manufacturing of the part” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “identifying, using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the material requirement is or what the feature of the part is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature of the design is or how the feature of the design is associated with the selected material. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a data processing apparatus and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 16
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 16 recites “identifying a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtaining a material specification based on a selected material to be used for manufacturing a part, wherein the material specification is a computer data structure that links a design aspect of at least one feature to a respective material manufacturing requirement of the selected material” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “receiving input that indicates a feature of the part” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “identifying, using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where the material specification functions as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the limitation of “identifying, using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the material requirement is or what the feature of the part is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and providing the feature with the design aspect, for facilitating the manufacturing of the part” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature of the design is or how the feature of the design is associated with the selected material. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language includes the additional elements of a data processing apparatus and medium. The data processing apparatus and medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “obtaining a material specification based on a selected material to be used for manufacturing a part, wherein the material specification is a computer data structure that links a design aspect of at least one feature to a respective material manufacturing requirement of the selected material”, “receiving input that indicates a feature of the part” and “and providing the feature with the design aspect, for facilitating the manufacturing of the part” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “identifying, using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the material requirement is or what the feature of the part is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature of the design is or how the feature of the design is associated with the selected material. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a data processing apparatus and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claims 2, 11 and 17
Dependent claims 2, 11 and 17 recite “identifying a declaration of the material manufacturing requirements from the material specification”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 2, 11 and 17 recite “and performing a design specification command of the feature based on the declaration of the material manufacturing requirement to identify the design aspect”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the performing of a design specification command is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 3, 12 and 18
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 18 recite “receiving selection of a different material to be used for manufacturing the part”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 18 recite “obtaining a different material specification based on the selected different material”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 18 recite “identifying a different declaration of a different material manufacturing requirement from the different material specification of the selected different material linked to the feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 18 recite “and re-performing the design specification command of the feature based on the different declaration of the different material manufacturing requirement to identify a different design aspect of the feature.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-performing of a design specification command is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 4 and 13
Dependent claims 4 and 13 recite “receiving a user input that changes the design aspect of the feature”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 4 and 13 recite “and providing a design recommendation for a modification for the design aspect of the feature based on the identified design aspect linked to the feature at the material specification.”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 5 and 14
Dependent claims 5 and 14 recite “presenting a user interface for user customization of material manufacturing requirements”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 5 and 14 recite “receiving input through the user interface for the user customization of the material manufacturing requirements”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 5 and 14 recite “and in response to receiving the input through the user interface, modifying or adding a declaration of the material manufacturing requirements.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6 and 15
Dependent claims 6 and 15 recite “obtaining, by the computer aided design program, a rule that takes the material specification as input and describes a logical connection between the two or more logically connected but distinct elements of the part”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 6 and 15 recite “and using the rule and the material specification to identify the design aspect of the feature including the material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the rule and material specification are being used. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 21
Dependent claim 21 recites “receiving a user input that changes the design aspect of the feature”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 21 recites “and providing a design recommendation for a modification for the design aspect of the feature based on the identified design aspect linked to the feature at the material specification.”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the feature at the material specification is or how the design aspect of the feature is associated with the feature at the material specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 22
Dependent claim 22 recites “presenting a user interface for user customization of material manufacturing requirements”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 22 recites “receiving input through the user interface for the user customization of the material manufacturing requirements”. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 22 recites “and in response to receiving the input through the user interface, modifying or adding a declaration of the material manufacturing requirements.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the modifying or adding of a declaration of the material manufacturing requirements are occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 1-6, 10-18 and 21-22 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Phinney et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0065629) (from IDS dated 4/25/23).
With respect to claim 1, Phinney et al. discloses “A method” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0004] “According to an aspect of an example embodiment, a method may include one or more of receiving an image including a geometric design of a component, etc.”)];
“obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a material specification based on a selected material to be used for manufacturing a part” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0029] “In some embodiments, the user (e.g., designer) may establish a high level of connection with the insight such as classifying the component as being a machined part, a sheet metal part, a cast part, or the like. The insight server 120 may then identify tools, specialized machining, basic machining, geometric features including attributes such as tolerances, surfaces, bends, holes, locations, sizes, corners, and the like, based on the model 110. Furthermore, the insight server 120 may then make suggestions as to how the to change one or more geometric features of the component as identified from the model 110. Also, it should be appreciate that the designer may input various attributes about the component to be manufactured that may further assist the insight server 120 in identifying and making suggestions. For example, a user interface of the insight server 120 may receive material types, manufacturing types, quantity of manufacture, manufacturing time needed, and the like.”, The examiner considers the insight server to be the computer data structure (material specification), since the insight server links a design feature to a manufacturing requirement)];
“wherein the material specification is a computer data structure that links a design aspect of at least one feature to a respective material manufacturing requirement of the selected material” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0028] “The insight server 120 may analyze a significant amount of manufacturing alternatives and different criteria and methods that might be viable to satisfy a desired outcome (design) of the product being manufactured. For example, the insight server 120 may identify multiple viable design variations and identify a lowest costing design variation, a least time consuming time variation, basic (easiest to manufacture) design variation, and the like. The insight server 120 may make multiple suggestions which are output via the user interface and which enable the designer to make the final choice on how best to proceed. The presence of certain features may create complexity while hindering manufacturing efficiency, and they can include unnecessary tolerances, dimensions that are too large, too small, materials that are not compatible with certain manufacturing processes, and the like. The insight server 120 can identify these problems and suggest alternatives that still satisfy the object of the component being designed. In some cases, the suggested changes are to enable the component to be manufactured.”, Phinney et al. paragraph [0029] “In some embodiments, the user (e.g., designer) may establish a high level of connection with the insight such as classifying the component as being a machined part, a sheet metal part, a cast part, or the like. The insight server 120 may then identify tools, specialized machining, basic machining, geometric features including attributes such as tolerances, surfaces, bends, holes, locations, sizes, corners, and the like, based on the model 110. Furthermore, the insight server 120 may then make suggestions as to how the to change one or more geometric features of the component as identified from the model 110. Also, it should be appreciate that the designer may input various attributes about the component to be manufactured that may further assist the insight server 120 in identifying and making suggestions. For example, a user interface of the insight server 120 may receive material types, manufacturing types, quantity of manufacture, manufacturing time needed, and the like.)];
“receiving, by the computer aided design program, input that indicates a feature of
the part” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0017] “Based on a computer-aided design (CAD) model, CAD file, or other geometric model in graphical format submitted to the system, one or more geometric features of interest can be detected from the CAD model or CAD file and modifications to the geometric feature can be automatically provided to reduce the complexity of manufacture.”, Phinney et al. paragraph [0029] “Furthermore, the insight server 120 may then make suggestions as to how the to change one or more geometric features of the component as identified from the model 110. Also, it should be appreciate that the designer may input various attributes about the component to be manufactured that may further assist the insight server 120 in identifying and making suggestions. For example, a user interface of the insight server 120 may receive material types, manufacturing types, quantity of manufacture, manufacturing time needed, and the like.”, Phinney et al. paragraph [0036] “In particular, a first manufacturing route 320A will apply a laser cut to manufacture the component 300 while a second manufacturing route 320B will apply a turret press to manufacture the component 300.”, The examiner notes that with the laser cut to manufacture the component and the turret press to manufacture the component, there will be different features for the component)];
“identifying, by the computer aided design program and using the material specification, a design aspect including a material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0035] “FIG. 3 illustrates a process 300 of determining a manufacturing design for a component in accordance with an example embodiment. Referring to FIG. 3, in step 310, the insight system identifies a number of features included in a geometric design of a sheet metal component 300 to be manufactured which may be included in a graphical model (CAD model, etc.) received by the system. In this example, the system identifies five features that might be modifiable. For example, the five features include a form, two types of bends, and two holes which may be automatically identified by the system based on a geometric design of the sheet metal component 300 (or drawing thereof) and may be further analyzed to determine if a modification is possible to any of the features to reduce manufacturing complexity.”, Figs. 2A and 3, The examiner considers the insight system to be the material specification (computer data structure), since the insight system links a design feature to a manufacturing requirement)];
“and providing, by the computer aided design program, the feature with the design aspect, for facilitating the manufacturing of the part.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0037] “In this example, the system determines that the laser cut process route 320A cannot manufacture a form of the component 300 because it has no process that can create the form feature, however the turret press process route 320B can create the form feature.”, Fig. 2A)];
“and using the feature with the design aspect to generate a version of a three dimensional model of the part that is manufacturable based on the selected material” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0043] “Referring to FIG. 6, in 610, the method may include receiving an image including a geometric design of a component. As an example, the image may include a model created with the use of computer software such as an electronic design automation (EDA), computer-aided design (CAD), assembly bill of materials (BOMs), purchased parts lists, composite ply layup tables, or the like. The image may include a two-dimensional model a three-dimensional model of a component such as a part, a piece, an assembly of parts/pieces, or the like, which is to be manufactured via a machining process, a cutting process, a punching process, a casting process, and/or the like.”, Phinney et al. paragraph [0051] “According to various embodiments, the processor 720 may receive an image including a geometric design of a component. The image may include a technical model such as CAD, or the like. The processor 720 may receive an identification of a type of manufacturing process for the component from among a plurality of types of manufacturing processes. The types may include a plastic molding process, a sheet metal process, a casting process, and the like. The processor 720 may recognize a geometric feature of the component from the image based on the type of manufacturing process, and determine a suggested modification to one or more of a size, a shape, and a location of the recognized geometric feature to reduce manufacturing complexity.”)];
With respect to claim 2, Phinney et al. discloses “identifying a declaration of the material manufacturing requirement from the material specification” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0018] “The process may be iterative in that multiple suggestions (or rounds of suggestions) are provided to the designer until a most efficient manufacturing design is determined. As another example, the system may detect a component that is not capable of manufacture due to one or more design constraints. In this example, the system can notify the designer of such a flawed design before the design is submitted for manufacture. Furthermore, the system can suggest changes to the design to meet manufacturing requirements.”)];
“and performing a design specification command of the feature based on the declaration of the material manufacturing requirement to identify the design aspect.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0018] “The process may be iterative in that multiple suggestions (or rounds of suggestions) are provided to the designer until a most efficient manufacturing design is determined. As another example, the system may detect a component that is not capable of manufacture due to one or more design constraints. In this example, the system can notify the designer of such a flawed design before the design is submitted for manufacture. Furthermore, the system can suggest changes to the design to meet manufacturing requirements.”)];
With respect to claim 3, Phinney et al. discloses “receiving selection of a different material to be used for manufacturing of the part” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0018] “The process may be iterative in that multiple suggestions (or rounds of suggestions) are provided to the designer until a most efficient manufacturing design is determined. As another example, the system may detect a component that is not capable of manufacture due to one or more design constraints. In this example, the system can notify the designer of such a flawed design before the design is submitted for manufacture. Furthermore, the system can suggest changes to the design to meet manufacturing requirements.”)];
“obtaining a different material specification based on the selected different material” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0018] “The process may be iterative in that multiple suggestions (or rounds of suggestions) are provided to the designer until a most efficient manufacturing design is determined. As another example, the system may detect a component that is not capable of manufacture due to one or more design constraints. In this example, the system can notify the designer of such a flawed design before the design is submitted for manufacture. Furthermore, the system can suggest changes to the design to meet manufacturing requirements.”, With there being different suggestions that are provided to the designer until a most efficient manufacturing design is determined demonstrates that there’s a different material specification being obtained, since the material specification is a computer data structure that links a feature of a design to a manufacturing requirement, see paragraph [0035] of the specification)];
“identifying a different declaration of a different material manufacturing requirement from the different material specification of the selected different material linked to the feature” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0038] “In addition to modeling the individual processes of each route 320A and 320B, the system may model the achievable tolerances for geometry in each process. In this example, a diametric tolerance of the first hole may be .07 mm. It turns out that this tolerance can be manufactured by the laser cut process within route 320A, but cannot be manufactured by the turret press process in route 320B. In this case, the system also identifies that a secondary (optional) machining operation of the route 320B of the turret press can manufacture the hole to the right tolerance.”, Phinney et al. paragraph [0039] “In this example, because the laser cut process route 320A has an error in that the form cannot be manufactured, the system may choose the turret press process route 320B because it has the highest confidence of a successful manufacture. However, if both process routings had an equal number of errors (or no errors) the system may choose a routing based on a second factor such as cost, time, availability, and the like.”)];
“re-performing the design specification command of the feature based on the different declaration of the different material manufacturing requirement to identify a different design aspect of the feature.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0018] “The process may be iterative in that multiple suggestions (or rounds of suggestions) are provided to the designer until a most efficient manufacturing design is determined. As another example, the system may detect a component that is not capable of manufacture due to one or more design constraints. In this example, the system can notify the designer of such a flawed design before the design is submitted for manufacture. Furthermore, the system can suggest changes to the design to meet manufacturing requirements.”)];
With respect to claim 4, Phinney et al. discloses “receiving a user input that changes the design aspect of the feature” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0029] “Also, it should be appreciate that the designer may input various attributes about the component to be manufactured that may further assist the insight server 120 in identifying and making suggestions. For example, a user interface of the insight server 120 may receive material types, manufacturing types, quantity of manufacture, manufacturing time needed, and the like.”)];
“and providing a design recommendation for a modification for the design aspect of the feature based on the identified design aspect linked to the feature at the material specification.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0029] “Furthermore, the insight server 120 may then make suggestions as to how the to change one or more geometric features of the component as identified from the model 110. Also, it should be appreciate that the designer may input various attributes about the component to be manufactured that may further assist the insight server 120 in identifying and making suggestions. For example, a user interface of the insight server 120 may receive material types, manufacturing types, quantity of manufacture, manufacturing time needed, and the like.”, The examiner considers the insight server making suggestions as being the design recommendation for a modification for the design aspect of the feature, since the insight server is making suggestions on how to change one or more geometric features of the component)];
With respect to claim 5, Phinney et al. discloses “presenting a user interface for user customization of material manufacturing requirements” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0022] “Furthermore, the system may output suggestions to a user via a user interface during a design of the component. In other words, the suggestions may be provided while the component is being designed (e.g., during CAD creation) thereby making such suggestions prior to the component being manufactured.”)];
“receiving input through the user interface for the user customization of the material manufacturing requirements” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0022] “Furthermore, the system may output suggestions to a user via a user interface during a design of the component. In other words, the suggestions may be provided while the component is being designed (e.g., during CAD creation) thereby making such suggestions prior to the component being manufactured……The system, via the user interface, may guide the user to a more efficient complexity through an iterative process the iteratively provides feedback while the user is changing the design of the product.”)];
“and in response to receiving the input through the user interface, modifying or adding a declaration of the material manufacturing requirements.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0022] “The system, via the user interface, may guide the user to a more efficient complexity through an iterative process the iteratively provides feedback while the user is changing the design of the product.”)];
With respect to claim 6, Phinney et al. discloses “wherein the feature comprises two or more logically connected but distinct elements of the part” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0034] “Examples of features 204 include, but are not limited to, blanks, holes, surfaces, parts, bends, draws, side actions, ribs, forms, machined features, and the like. Each feature 204 has various properties 206. In some cases, the properties 206 may overlap within some of the features 204. Properties 206 may include, but are not limited to, dimensions (or other size-related properties), edge type, tolerances, thickness, accessibility of tools/directions, location, distances, orientations, and the like.”, Figs. 2A and 2B)];
“obtaining, by the computer aided design program, a rule that takes the material specification as input and describes a logical connection between the two or more logically connected but distinct elements of the part” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0038] “In addition to modeling the individual processes of each route 320A and 320B, the system may model the achievable tolerances for geometry in each process. In this example, a diametric tolerance of the first hole may be .07 mm. It turns out that this tolerance can be manufactured by the laser cut process within route 320A, but cannot be manufactured by the turret press process in route 320B. In this case, the system also identifies that a secondary (optional) machining operation of the route 320B of the turret press can manufacture the hole to the right tolerance.”, Fig. 2A, The examiner considers the diameter and tolerance that are connected with using the laser cut process to be the logical connection between elements)];
“using the rule and the material specification to identify the design aspect including the material manufacturing requirement of the selected material linked to the feature” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0038] “In addition to modeling the individual processes of each route 320A and 320B, the system may model the achievable tolerances for geometry in each process. In this example, a diametric tolerance of the first hole may be .07 mm. It turns out that this tolerance can be manufactured by the laser cut process within route 320A, but cannot be manufactured by the turret press process in route 320B. In this case, the system also identifies that a secondary (optional) machining operation of the route 320B of the turret press can manufacture the hole to the right tolerance.”, Fig. 2A and 2B)];
With respect to claim 7, Phinney et al. discloses “A method” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0004] “According to an aspect of an example embodiment, a method may include one or more of receiving an image including a geometric design of a component, etc.”)];
“receiving, by a computer aided design program, selection of a material specification associated with a material selected for manufacturing a part being designed” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0029] “In some embodiments, the user (e.g., designer) may establish a high level of connection with the insight such as classifying the component as being a machined part, a sheet metal part, a cast part, or the like. The insight server 120 may then identify tools, specialized machining, basic machining, geometric features including attributes such as tolerances, surfaces, bends, holes, locations, sizes, corners, and the like, based on the model 110. Furthermore, the insight server 120 may then make suggestions as to how the to change one or more geometric features of the component as identified from the model 110. Also, it should be appreciate that the designer may input various attributes about the component to be manufactured that may further assist the insight server 120 in identifying and making suggestions. For example, a user interface of the insight server 120 may receive material types, manufacturing types, quantity of manufacture, manufacturing time needed, and the like.”, The examiner considers the insight server to be the computer data structure (material specification), since the insight server links a design feature to a manufacturing requirement)];
“wherein the material specification links a design aspect of a feature of the part to a respective material manufacturing requirement of the material” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0028] “The insight server 120 may analyze a significant amount of manufacturing alternatives and different criteria and methods that might be viable to satisfy a desired outcome (design) of the product being manufactured. For example, the insight server 120 may identify multiple viable design variations and identify a lowest costing design variation, a least time consuming time variation, basic (easiest to manufacture) design variation, and the like. The insight server 120 may make multiple suggestions which are output via the user interface and which enable the designer to make the final choice on how best to proceed. The presence of certain features may create complexity while hindering manufacturing efficiency, and they can include unnecessary tolerances, dimensions that are too large, too small, materials that are not compatible with certain manufacturing processes, and the like. The insight server 120 can identify these problems and suggest alternatives that still satisfy the object of the component being designed. In some cases, the suggested changes are to enable the component to be manufactured.”, Phinney et al. paragraph [0029] “In some embodiments, the user (e.g., designer) may establish a high level of connection with the insight such as classifying the component as being a machined part, a sheet metal part, a cast part, or the like. The insight server 120 may then identify tools, specialized machining, basic machining, geometric features including attributes such as tolerances, surfaces, bends, holes, locations, sizes, corners, and the like, based on the model 110. Furthermore, the insight server 120 may then make suggestions as to how the to change one or more geometric features of the component as identified from the model 110. Also, it should be appreciate that the designer may input various attributes about the component to be manufactured that may further assist the insight server 120 in identifying and making suggestions. For example, a user interface of the insight server 120 may receive material types, manufacturing types, quantity of manufacture, manufacturing time needed, and the like.)];
“receiving, by the computer aided design program, a first design aspect of a first feature for the part” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0017] “Based on a computer-aided design (CAD) model, CAD file, or other geometric model in graphical format submitted to the system, one or more geometric features of interest can be detected from the CAD model or CAD file and modifications to the geometric feature can be automatically provided to reduce the complexity of manufacture.”, Phinney et al. paragraph [0036] “In particular, a first manufacturing route 320A will apply a laser cut to manufacture the component 300 while a second manufacturing route 320B will apply a turret press to manufacture the component 300.”, The examiner notes that with the laser cut to manufacture the component and the turret press to manufacture the component, there will be different features for the component)];
“and providing, by the computer aided design program, a design recommendation a modification for the first design aspect of the first feature based on identifying a second design aspect linked to the first feature at the material specification.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0029] “Furthermore, the insight server 120 may then make suggestions as to how the to change one or more geometric features of the component as identified from the model 110. Also, it should be appreciate that the designer may input various attributes about the component to be manufactured that may further assist the insight server 120 in identifying and making suggestions. For example, a user interface of the insight server 120 may receive material types, manufacturing types, quantity of manufacture, manufacturing time needed, and the like.”, The examiner considers the various attributes about the component that are input to be the second design aspect that is identified, since the various attributes of the component can further assist in identifying and making suggestions)];
With respect to claim 8, Phinney et al. discloses “wherein the design recommendation comprises a recommended range for a value of the first design aspect” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0030] “Another example is tolerances which can drive additional manufacturing (specialized manufacturing). Tight tolerances often require specialized finishing. Therefore, a suggestion to back-off a tolerance may eliminate the specialized finishing. Another example, is a change to a size or shape of a geometric feature may reduce the number of tools (and time) needed to manufacture such a design. For example, a hole having a tolerance of 4/1000 of an inch in sheet metal may require three separate drilling processes, but if the tolerance of the hole is backed-off to 8/1000 of an inch it may only require one standard drilling process.”, The examiner considers tolerance value for standard drilling process to be the design recommendation)];
“receiving an updated design aspect of the feature, wherein the updated design aspect comprises an updated value of the first design aspect that is within the recommended range.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0030] “Another example is tolerances which can drive additional manufacturing (specialized manufacturing). Tight tolerances often require specialized finishing. Therefore, a suggestion to back-off a tolerance may eliminate the specialized finishing. Another example, is a change to a size or shape of a geometric feature may reduce the number of tools (and time) needed to manufacture such a design. For example, a hole having a tolerance of 4/1000 of an inch in sheet metal may require three separate drilling processes, but if the tolerance of the hole is backed-off to 8/1000 of an inch it may only require one standard drilling process.”)];
With respect to claim 9, Phinney et al. discloses “wherein the design recommendation comprises an issue for the first design aspect” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0037] “In this example, the system determines that the laser cut process route 320A cannot manufacture a form of the component 300 because it has no process that can create the form feature, however the turret press process route 320B can create the form feature.”, The examiner considers the laser cut process route not being able to manufacture the component to be an issue for the design aspect, since the component cannot be manufactured)];
“and the method comprises: receiving selection of a different material specification for the first feature of the part to remove the issue for the first design aspect.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0037] “In this example, the system determines that the laser cut process route 320A cannot manufacture a form of the component 300 because it has no process that can create the form feature, however the turret press process route 320B can create the form feature.”)];
With respect to claim 10, Phinney et al. discloses “A system” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0017] “The example embodiments are directed to a system and method that can identify and suggest design modifications to a component thereby reducing manufacturing complexity prior to manufacture.”)];
“a non-transitory storage medium having instructions of a computer aided design program stored thereon” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0053] “Any such resulting program, having computer-readable code, may be embodied or provided within one or more non transitory computer-readable media, thereby making a computer program product, i.e., an article of manufacture, according to the discussed examples of the disclosure. For example, the non-transitory computer-readable media may be, but is not limited to, a fixed drive, diskette, optical disk, magnetic tape, flash memory, external drive, semiconductor memory such as read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and/or any other non-transitory transmitting and/or receiving medium such as the Internet, cloud storage, the Internet of Things (IoT), or other communication network or link.”)];
“and one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to perform operations specified by the instructions of the computer aided design program” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0054] “The computer programs (also referred to as programs, software, software applications, “apps”, or code) may include machine instructions for a programmable processor, and may be implemented in a high-level procedural and/or object-oriented programming language, and/or in assembly/machine language. As used herein, the terms “machine-readable medium” and “computer-readable medium” refer to any computer program product, apparatus, cloud storage, internet of things, and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, programmable logic devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor, including a machine-readable medium that receives machine instructions as a machine-readable signal. The “machine-readable medium” and “computer-readable medium,” however, do not include transitory signals.”, Fig. 7)];
The other limitations recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claims 11-15, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 2-6 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 16, Phinney et al. discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0053] “Any such resulting program, having computer-readable code, may be embodied or provided within one or more non transitory computer-readable media, thereby making a computer program product, i.e., an article of manufacture, according to the discussed examples of the disclosure. For example, the non-transitory computer-readable media may be, but is not limited to, a fixed drive, diskette, optical disk, magnetic tape, flash memory, external drive, semiconductor memory such as read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and/or any other non-transitory transmitting and/or receiving medium such as the Internet, cloud storage, the Internet of Things (IoT), or other communication network or link.”)];
“data processing apparatus” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0054] “The computer programs (also referred to as programs, software, software applications, “apps”, or code) may include machine instructions for a programmable processor, and may be implemented in a high-level procedural and/or object-oriented programming language, and/or in assembly/machine language. As used herein, the terms “machine-readable medium” and “computer-readable medium” refer to any computer program product, apparatus, cloud storage, internet of things, and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, programmable logic devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor, including a machine-readable medium that receives machine instructions as a machine-readable signal. The “machine-readable medium” and “computer-readable medium,” however, do not include transitory signals.”, Fig. 7)];
The other limitations recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claims 17-18, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 2-3 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claims 21-22, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claims 4 and 5 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Ozasa et al. (U.S. PGPub 2006/0142883) is a design supporting system which is connected to a client terminal over a network and supports component design which is executed in the client terminal.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights