DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims and response/remarks filled 12 June 2025.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 have been amended.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
Amendments to the specification filed 12 June 2025 have been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 12, 14, 18, and 20; Claim 9, lines 18, 20, 24, and 26; and Claim 10, lines 18, 20, 23-24, and 26 recites “the one or more outsourcing requirements”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements”.
Claim 1, line 12; Claim 9, line 18; and claim 10, line 18 recites “requirements ii)”. This appears to be a typographical error of “requirements, ii)”.
Claims 2, 4-8 and 11 are dependent on Claims 1, 9, and 10. Claims 2, 4-8 and 11 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 9, and 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), claim 10 is drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 9 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-2 and 4-11 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
transforming, three-dimensional data expressing the component in a three-dimensional manner into a plurality of two-dimensional data expressing the component in a two-dimensional manner;
receiving the two-dimensional data;
extracting designation information from the two-dimensional data;
determining outsourcing requirements corresponding to the designation information;
determining whether capabilities of the processor meet the outsourcing requirements;
based on determining that the capabilities of the processor do not meet one or more outsourcing requirements of the outsourcing requirements, i) excluding from the outsourcing requirements, the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, ii) calculating a first estimated amount for processing the component based on the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, iii) transmitting the first estimated amount, iv) receiving, in response to the first estimated amount, a first order instruction for processing the component based on the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, and v) adding, to the two-dimensional data, in response to receiving the first order instruction, first additional data corresponding to the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, and vi) transmitting, the two dimensional data to which the first additional data is added; and
based on determining that the capabilities of the processor meet all the outsourcing requirements, i) calculating a second estimated amount for processing the component based on all the outsourcing requirements, ii) transmitting the second estimated amount, iii) receiving, in response to the second estimated amount, a second order instruction for processing the component based on all the outsourcing requirements, iv) adding, to the two-dimensional data, in response to receiving the second order instruction, second additional data corresponding to all the outsourcing requirements; and transmitting to the processor, the two-dimensional data to which the second additional data is added.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to assisting manufacturing outsourcing. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a form of managing interactions between people where an intermediary assists a manufacturer outsource their work to another party. The concept of managing interaction between people, falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): CAD (computer Aided Design) data and a manufacturer terminal of the manufacture. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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 merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim 2 and 11 further recites the additional element: OCR (claim 2), DXF (Drawing Exchange Format) format (claim 11). These additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2 and 11 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4-8 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claims 3-8 are ineligible.
Claim 9 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 9 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 9 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which programmed instructions are recorded, the instructions causing a server to perform a method, CAD (computer Aided Design) data and a manufacturer terminal of the manufacture. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 10 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 10 recites the following additional elements: a CPU configured to communicate with a manufacturer terminal of the manufacturer and a processor terminal of the processor, and a processing device and Computer Aided Design (CAD) data. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
The present invention is directed towards assisting manufacturing outsourcing from a manufacturer to a processor for processing a component. Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 teach the novel and non-obvious features of:
transforming, in a manufacturer terminal of the manufacturer, three-dimensional CAD (Computer Aided Design) data expressing the component in a three-dimensional manner into two-dimensional CAD data expressing the component in a two-dimensional manner;
receiving, from the manufacturer terminal of the manufacturer, the two-dimensional CAD data;
extracting designation information from the two-dimensional CAD data;
determining outsourcing requirements corresponding to the designation information;
determining whether capabilities of the processor meet the outsourcing requirements;
based on determining that the capabilities of the processor do not meet one or more outsourcing requirements of the outsourcing requirements, i) excluding, from the outsourcing requirements, the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, ii) calculating a first estimated amount for processing the component based on the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, iii) transmitting the first estimated amount to the manufacturer terminal, iv) receiving, from the manufacturer terminal in response to the first estimated amount, a first order instruction for processing the component based on the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, v) adding, to the two-dimensional CAD data in response to receiving the first order instruction, first additional data corresponding to the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, and vi) transmitting, to the processor, the two-dimensional CAD data to which the first additional data is added; and
based on determining that the capabilities of the processor meet all the outsourcing requirements, i) calculating a second estimated amount for processing the component based on all the outsourcing requirements, ii) transmitting the second estimated amount to the manufacturer terminal, iii) receiving, from the manufacturer terminal in response to the second estimated amount, a second order instruction for processing the component based on all the outsourcing requirements, iv) adding, to the two-dimensional CAD data in response to receiving the second order instruction, second additional data corresponding to all the outsourcing requirements, and v) transmitting, to the processor, the two-dimensional CAD data to which the second additional data is added.
The Examiner notes that “based on determining that the capabilities of the processor do not meet one or more outsourcing requirements of the outsourcing requirements, i) excluding, from the outsourcing requirements, the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, ii) calculating a first estimated amount for processing the component based on the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements” distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art. While determining that the capabilities of the processor does not meet one or more outsourcing requirements is known, the specific steps that occur in response to the determination makes the invention novel. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention:
Burton (US 20200349303 A1) teaches transforming 3D CAD data into 2D CAD data, extracting designation information from the 2D CAD data, determining outsourcing requirements corresponding to the designation information, and adding to the 2D CAD data additional data. Burton does not teach determining whether capabilities of the processor meet the outsourcing requirements.
Gross (US 20060253214 A1) teaches determining whether capabilities of the processor meet the outsourcing requirements, but is silent to excluding the outsourcing requirements that are unmet and performing various steps excluding the unmet requirements.
Neither Burton nor Gross anticipate nor render obvious:
based on determining that the capabilities of the processor do not meet one or more outsourcing requirements of the outsourcing requirements, i) excluding, from the outsourcing requirements, the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, ii) calculating a first estimated amount for processing the component based on the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, iii) transmitting the first estimated amount to the manufacturer terminal, iv) receiving, from the manufacturer terminal in response to the first estimated amount, a first order instruction for processing the component based on the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, v) adding, to the two-dimensional CAD data in response to receiving the first order instruction, first additional data corresponding to the outsourcing requirements excluding the one or more unmet outsourcing requirements, and vi) transmitting, to the processor, the two-dimensional CAD data to which the first additional data is added.
Assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Ro (see attached NPL) is directed to Outsourcing strategies for manufacturers facing reputation oriented consumers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 12 June 2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment filed 12 June 2025. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 12 June 2025, with respect to the objections of claims 1, 9, and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claims 1, 9, and 10. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of objection is made in view of the amendments of claims 1, 9, and 10.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 9-11, filed 12 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues 1) the claims are integrated into a practical application and 2) the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagree.
Regarding argument 1, the applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the system performs a technical compatibility check between the designated specifications extracted from the two-dimensional CAD data and the known manufacturing capabilities of the processor. This “check” is described in the claims at a very high level. The independent claims recite the steps of transforming 3D CAD data into 2D CAD data, receiving 2D CAD data, extracting designation information from the 2D CAD data, determining outsourcing requirements from the designation information, and determining whether capabilities of the processor meet the outsourcing requirements. The data is being processed at a high level. This data, as described by the claims, could be processed by a computer in the same way a human would process it. There is nothing recited in the steps that explains how the CAD data, designation information, outsourcing requirements, etc. cannot be processed by a human. The manufacturing terminal in the receiving and transforming step is being applied at a high level in the same way that a human would process the data. Since the processing of the data does not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem. The Applicant further argues the system improves the overall efficiency of the outsourcing workflow and reduces the likelihood of miscommunication or downstream failure. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The efficiency that the applicant is describing is the efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). It is inherent that using a computer to perform this method that a human could perform would cause the system be more efficient and have a reduced likelihood of miscommunication or downstream failure. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the additional elements do not integrate the invention into a practical application.
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the system does not simply receive data and transmit the data without modification. Similar to argument 1, the “modification” to the data that is described in the claims is at a high level and can be performed in the same way by a computer as a human would. For example, a human could determine the capabilities of a processor does not meet one or more outsourcing requirements and then exclude the unmet requirements from further processing for that processor. There is nothing in the claims that suggests only a computer could perform the steps. Since modifying outsourcing requirements does not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem. An improvement to the abstract idea does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 12 June 2025, with respect to the 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to claims 1, 9, and 10. The 112(a) rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-11 has been withdrawn. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 12 June 2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections of claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claims 1, 9, and 10. The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-11 has been withdrawn. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12-13, filed 12 June 2025, with respect to the 112(f) invocation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) invocation of claims 1-2 and 4-11 has been withdrawn. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-17, filed 12 June 2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claims 1, 9, and 10 overcoming the prior art. The 103 rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-11 has been withdrawn. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628