DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 10/4/22 and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to U.S. Provisional Patent.
Application 63/252,109 filed on 10/4/21.
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 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 “generating, by the computer aided
design program, a design aspect of the feature in accordance with 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.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving, by a computer aided design program, selection of a material specification for a part being designed for manufacturing” and “receiving, by the computer aided design program, input that defines 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 “and providing, by the computer aided design program, 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 providing, by the computer aided design program, 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.
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 “receiving, by a computer aided design program, selection of a material specification for a part being designed for manufacturing”, “receiving, by the computer aided design program, input that defines a feature of the part” and “and providing, by the computer aided design program, 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 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 “generating a design aspect of the feature in accordance with 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.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving selection of a material specification for a part being designed for manufacturing” and “receiving input that defines 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 “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 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 “receiving selection of a material specification for a part being designed for manufacturing”, receiving input that defines 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 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 “generating a design aspect of the feature in accordance with 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.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving selection of a material specification for a part being designed for manufacturing” and “receiving input that defines 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 “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).
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 “receiving selection of a material specification for a part being designed for manufacturing”, “receiving input that defines 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 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 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 requirements”. 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 specification for the feature 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 3, 12 and 18 recite “identifying a different declaration of different material manufacturing requirements from the different 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 3, 12 and 18 recite “and changing the design aspect of the feature by re-performing the design specification command of the feature based on the different declaration of the different material manufacturing requirements.”. 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 the design aspect of the feature based on 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 generating, by the computer aided design program, the design aspect of the feature using the rule and in accordance with 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.
Claims 1-6 and 10-18 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phinney
et al. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0065629) (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.”)];
“receiving, by a computer aided design program, selection of a material specification for a part being designed for manufacturing” 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……..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 [0032] “Different materials, processes, machines, geometry features, and the like, may be changed to affect complexity.”)];
“receiving, by the computer aided design program, input that defines 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 [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 cute to manufacture the component and the turret press to manufacture the component, there will be different features for the component)];
“generating, by the computer aided design program, a design aspect of the feature
in accordance with the material specification” 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)];
“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)];
With respect to claim 2, Phinney et al. discloses “identifying a declaration of material manufacturing requirements 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 requirements.” 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 specification for the feature 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.”)];
“identifying a different declaration of different material manufacturing requirements from the different material specification” 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.”)];
“and changing the design aspect of the feature by re-performing the design specification command of the feature based on the different declaration of the different material manufacturing requirements.” 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 the design aspect of the feature based on 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 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)];
“and generating, by the computer aided design program, the design aspect of the feature using the rule and in accordance with the material specification.” as [Phinney et al. (paragraph [0038] “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 for a part being designed for manufacturing” 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……..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 [0032] “Different materials, processes, machines, geometry features, and the like, may be changed to affect complexity.”)];
“receiving, by the computer aided design program, a design of a 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 cute 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 for a design aspect of the feature in accordance with the material specification.” 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)];
With respect to claim 8, Phinney et al. discloses “wherein the design recommendation comprises a recommended range for a value of the 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 of the feature, wherein the updated design comprises an updated value of the 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 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 feature of the part to remove the issue for the 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Thompson et al. (U.S. PGPub 2012/0109589) is methods and systems for direct-parametric interoperability in computer-aided design.
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
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188