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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 05/03/2023.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process), without significantly more.
Claims 1,2, 8,9 15,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al, A new method for interoperability and conformance checking of product manufacturing information, Computers and Electrical Engineering Vol 85, July 2020, 106650 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004579062030505X (“PEN”) in view of DE 102019133846 A1 (published 2020-06-10) MACHALICA et al (“MAC”)
Claims 3-6, 10-16, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al, A new method for interoperability and conformance checking of product manufacturing information, Computers and Electrical Engineering Vol 85, July 2020, 106650 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004579062030505X (“PEN”) in view of DE 102019133846 A1 (published 2020-06-10) MACHALICA et al (“MAC”) in further view of Check-Mate Author Training https://tbaimages.com/forums/Check-Mate_Author_2013.pdf
(“CMA”)
Claims 7, 14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al, A new method for interoperability and conformance checking of product manufacturing information, Computers and Electrical Engineering Vol 85, July 2020, 106650 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004579062030505X (“PEN”) in view of DE 102019133846 A1 (published 2020-06-10) MACHALICA et al (“MAC”) in further view of NIST GCR 15-999 Measuring the PMI Modeling Capability in CAD Systems: Report 3 - Fully-Toleranced Test Case Verification http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-999 (“NIS”)
Priority
This is a 371 of 371 of PCT/US2021/039797 filed 06/30/2021 App #18/035,175. The application claims foreign priority to the Application IN202031047976 REPUBLIC OF INDIA filed 11/03/2020. Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2023 and 09/01/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Notations, Abbreviations and Conventions used.
The number in the parenthesis, following next to a claim number, when used, is the number of the parent claim.
The following abbreviations are used:
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
POSITA = Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
101 - 35 USC § 101
102 or 103 = 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103
(S1)/(S2A1)/(S2A2) (S2B) = Steps 1, 2AProng1 , 2AProng2, and 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis in the Alice/Mayo framework
WURC = Well Understood, Routine, Conventional
{ } text from the reference
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claims 8-14 recite a “PMI validation module configured to” which is examined according to the following 3-prong analysis:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
The claim uses the word “module”, which is a nonce term
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
The claim uses “configured to”.
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The above are missing.
This application is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: ‘unit configured to’ for example in in the form “output unit is configured to” in the independent claim 8. The 112(f) interpretation applies to dependent claims as well, and thus it applied to claims 8-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites
“wherein determining whether there is at least one checker in the checker database that can be modified is modifiable comprises:
when there is at least one checker that is modifiable, modifying the one or more logical elements of the at least one checker in a manner that the modified checker is capable of validating the product and manufacturing information; and
when there is no checker in the checker database, generating a checker for validating the product and manufacturing information associated with the geometric model of the physical object.”
“wherein determining comprises: … modifying (under one condition), generating a checker” (otherwise) It appears that a determination is in fact a modification or generation, which is unclear and inconsistent with the specification. The detailed specification and the logic will indicate that upon determining certain steps are taken not that the determining itself has the steps. Also some terms may help clarify the limitation. As drafted the limitation recites “when there is no checker” – which may be interpreted there is no checker of any kind, but what is most likely meant is no checker that is modifiable.
Claims 8-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitation “PMI validation module configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification refers to checkers using logical elements capable of validating the PMI. This disclosure merely restates the function/desired result and does not provide the algorithm by which the validation is performed. Similarly generate a checker capable of validating the PMI without explaining how to construct the rules of the new checker.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For example, in claims 8-14 the specification merely states that validation is by checkers which use logical elements and are capable of validating .. Similarly, how to generate a checker capable of validating the PMI without explaining how to construct the rules of the new checker. “[Par] ” (and so on) without providing any corresponding details that would permit a POSITA understand how such performance is obtained. The disclosure fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention and does not provide sufficient detail to convey to a POSITA how to use logical elements or how to generate the checker.
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claim in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-21 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 1-7 directed to a method), machine (claims 8-14 directed to an apparatus) and manufacture (claims 15-21 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 8, 15, recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
generating a geometric model of a physical object in the computer-aided design environment, wherein the geometric model of the physical object comprises product and manufacturing information;
extracting the product and manufacturing information from the geometric model;
validating the extracted product and manufacturing information using at least one checker, wherein the at least one checker comprises one or more logical elements capable of validating the product and manufacturing information; and
outputting results of the validation of the extracted product and manufacturing information on a graphical user interface.
According to the MPEP 2106.04 II. B guidance when multiple limitations reciting abstract ideas these should be combined for analysis as a single abstract idea. In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the combination of abstract ideas in the bolded limitations claim recites a process aimed at: “validating product and manufacturing information extracted from a generated model”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. It can be practically performed mentally or manually by a human. A human can generate a model in the mind, or with the use of a tool, observe/select specific information, determine criteria for chcking and compare with those criteria thus if criteria are satisfied validating information. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8. 15 recite an abstract idea.
(S2A2)
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or to a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements “in the computer-aided design environment ” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer” (used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The additional claim elements also recite: outputting to a GUI [D]. When considered individually, each amounts to nothing more than “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered post-solution activity because they are mere outputting or post-processing results from executing the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(d); which the courts have identified did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claims 1, 8, 15 do not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), which for situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data gathering, data manipulation, and data transmission, data outputting recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)).
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and Insignificant Extra Activities. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 8, 15 are ineligible.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS further recite:
2(1), 9(8) 16(15)
identifying the at least one checker for validating the product and manufacturing information associated with the geometric model from a plurality of checkers in a checker database based on a type of the product and manufacturing information.
(a mental process of evaluation/judgement/decision-making in the identification)
3(2), 10(9), 17(16)
wherein identifying the at least one checker for validating the product and manufacturing information comprises:
determining whether there is at least one checker suitable for validating the product and manufacturing information in the checker database;
when, based on the determining, there is no checker in the checker database, determining whether there is at least one checker in the checker database that can be modified is modifiable; and
when there is at least one checker in the checker database, obtaining the at least one checker for validating the product and manufacturing information from the checker database.
(mental process - all the limitations above can be performed by a person through observation judgement and decision-making),
4(3), 11(10), 18(17)
wherein determining whether there is at least one checker in the checker database that can be modified is modifiable comprises:
when there is at least one checker that is modifiable, modifying the one or more logical elements of the at least one checker in a manner that the modified checker is capable of validating the product and manufacturing information; and
when there is no checker in the checker database, generating a checker for validating the product and manufacturing information associated with the geometric model of the physical object.
(mental process- a person can determine the missing validation and evaluate and mentally -of using a tool – pen and paper - conceive /generate the compliance rules for the checker)
5(4), 12(11), 19(18)
wherein generating the checker for validating the product and manufacturing information associated with the geometric model comprises:
determining at least one standard associated with the validation of the product and manufacturing information based on the type of the product and manufacturing information;
generating at least one standard compliant criterion for validating the product and manufacturing information;
identifying the one or more logical elements from a plurality of logical elements based on the at least one standard compliant criterion; and
generating the at least one checker for validating the product and manufacturing information using the one or more logical elements.
(mental process- a person can determine the missing validation and evaluate and mentally -of using a tool – pen and paper - conceive /generate the compliance rules for the checker)
6(4), 13(11), 20(18)
wherein modifying the one or more logical elements of the at least one checker comprises:
determining at least one standard associated with the validation of the product and manufacturing information based onthe type of the product and manufacturing information;
generating at least one standard compliant criterion for validating the product and manufacturing information;
identifying the one or more logical elements from a plurality of logical elements based on the at least one standard compliant criteria;
determining at least one logical elements which element that needs to be substituted in the at least one checker based on the at least one standard compliant criterion; and
modifying the at least one checker, the modifying of the at least one checker comprising replacing the identified one or more logical elements with at least one logical element that needs to be substituted.
(mental process limitations – implemented in a computer)
7 (1), 14(8), 21(15)
wherein validating the extracted product and manufacturing information using the at least one checker,checker comprises:
comparing the product and manufacturing information with standard compliant criterion using the one or more logical elements in the at least one checker;
determining whether the product and manufacturing information matches the standard compliant criterion;
(mental process limitations – implemented in a computer)
when, based on the determining, the product and manufacturing information matches the standard compliant criterion, generating a signal indicating that the product and manufacturing information is successfully validated; and
(insignificant post solution activity – generating a signal to communicate success)
when, based on the determining, the product and manufacturing information does not match the standard compliant criterion, generating a signal indicating failure to validate the product and manufacturing information. (insignificant post solution activity – generating a signal to communicate failure)
Each of these claims continues to recite, and further reinforce/elaborate on the abstract idea in the parent claim. The analysis for each of them is similar to that of the parent claim. The bolded claim elements recite mental processes. The additional elements further recited by the claim are of the same nature as those identified in the parent claim, specifically Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) limitations of data gathering, data manipulation, and data transmission, data outputting recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). data manipulation and mere instructions to apply an exception ((MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
The specification also indicates the method of validation can be performed by humans (hence the mental process), see for example: [0003] the product and manufacturing information is validated using manual techniques or out of box checkers. Manual validation of the product and manufacturing information is tedious and error- prone process. However, out of box checkers are based on fixed logic… In order to fully validate the product and manufacturing information with respect to the standards, the validators may have to use manual techniques in absence of adequate checkers for validating product and manufacturing information. This may be a tedious and error-prone activity.”
For each of the above claims, when considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each of the claims is thus directed to a judicial exception.
For each of the above claims, when considered individually and in combination, the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claims are thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al, A new method for interoperability and conformance checking of product manufacturing information, Computers and Electrical Engineering Vol 85, July 2020, 106650 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004579062030505X (“PEN”) in view of DE 102019133846 A1 (published 2020-06-10) MACHALICA et al (“MAC”)
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 PEN teaches
extracting the product and manufacturing information from the geometric model; {p1. STEP File Analyzer and Viewer [4] is a software package …used to measure the ability of CAD software to conform to the standard of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) for PMI, especially with respect to geometric dimensions and tolerances; Fig 2; 3. Construction of PMI ontology Fifty types of basic PMI constructs are covered in the recommended practices and are applied to five independent geometric models 3.4. Construction of an ABox for PMI To realize the compatibility of PMI information, the data of ABox are taken from the neutral file outputted by the corresponding CAD software}
validating the extracted product and manufacturing information using at least one checker, wherein the at least one checker comprises one or more logical elements capable of validating the product and manufacturing information; and {see at least p3 the STEP File Analyzer software developed by NIST conducts verification and validation testing on the output files of each CAD system and finds that the problem of inconsistency still exists 4.2.3. Applications to PMI conformance checking. Conformance checking of the PMI is intended to analyze whether the PMI implemented by the CAD software is in line with the recommended practices. The process of PMI conformance checking reads the STEP file and finds the first entity instance corresponding to the recommended practice entity pattern; Abstract - Using web ontology language description logic (OWL2 DL) and semantic web rule language (SRWL), PMI can be described clearly and without ambiguity and can be read and interpreted automatically by the computer. In addition, the ontology also supplies the functions of con- sistency checking, knowledge inference, and semantic queries; 3.3. Design of PMI rules with SWRL language Based on OWL and RuleML language, SWRL language extends its semantics based on OWL modeling theory, which en- sures that the content of abstract syntax description has formal semantics and supplies a higher level of abstract syntax than OWL language. The rule form described in the SWRL language is given in the following expression 12. antecedent −> consequent }
PEN does not explicitly teach, however MAC teaches
generating a geometric model of a physical object in the computer-aided design environment, wherein the geometric model of the physical object comprises product and manufacturing information; {see at least Detailed description – 3rd para Developing a machine or part may include certain systems and methods, described in more detail below, that create a model of the part. For example, the model of the part can be created as a model-based definition, which is included in a 2-dimensional (2D) or 3-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design model (CAD model). The techniques described herein can include the CAD model, which contains all of the dimensional and tolerance information.}
outputting results of the validation of the extracted product and manufacturing information on a graphical user interface.{ Abstract The system also includes a memory that stores instructions configured to cause the processor to receive the CAD model and the product and manufacturing information (PMI) associated with the CAD model, validate the PMI, and the CAD - Display model with validated PMI via the GUI.}
MAC clearly also teaches the processor and memory that stores the instructions for the validation process, which are limitations in the systems claim (Abstract, as shown above)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PEN and MAC. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of obtaining the CAD model with PMI, which in PEN is assumed already existing, and to be able to visualize the result.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PEN/MAC.
Regarding claims 2(1), 9(8) 16(15) PEN/MAC teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PEN further teaches
identifying the at least one checker for validating the product and manufacturing information associated with the geometric model from a plurality of checkers in a checker database based on a type of the product and manufacturing information. {4.1. Implementation Protégé Desktop 5.0 [26] is an ontology editor and knowledge acquisition system that supplies an integration environ- ment for creating, editing and saving ontologies in a visual manner and makes it easy to create TBox, RBox, SWRL rules and ABox. Because interoperability and conformance checking of PMI both require reading of data from the STEP neutral file, this task can be achieved by the API interface of STEP files such as Java API [27] or C ++ API [28] . The Protégé-OWL API [29] and Java programming language are used to manipulate ontology data such as a database. The constructed ontology can be applied for consistency checking, knowledge reasoning and semantics queries…3.2. Construction of a RBox for PMI …ID, identification, name, product_definitional, and angle_selection are defined as data properties. The angle selection is the data property of the angular dimension.,, In addition, selected constraint rules apply for the entity (concept) in the PMI.}
Claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al, A new method for interoperability and conformance checking of product manufacturing information, Computers and Electrical Engineering Vol 85, July 2020, 106650 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004579062030505X (“PEN”) in view of DE 102019133846 A1 (published 2020-06-10) MACHALICA et al (“MAC”) in further view of Check-Mate Author Training https://tbaimages.com/forums/Check-Mate_Author_2013.pdf (“CMA”)
Regarding claims 3(2), 10(9), 17(16) PEN/MAC teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PEN/MAC does not teach, however CMA teaches
wherein identifying the at least one checker for validating the product and manufacturing information comprises: determining whether there is at least one checker suitable for validating the product and manufacturing information in the checker database; {p9 Check-Mate is a powerful tool for checking the quality of NX models. A “check” is a small piece of logic that looks for a particular condition within a model. Individual checks may validate anything..;p56 Searching first in the list of existing checkers to choose a checker that is at least close – one that either: a. Deals with the same kind of entity being considered (Component, layer, solid, point, etc.) or… b. Has a similar logical function; Individual checks may validate anything…p96 Anatomy of a Check-Mate Profile 2 (String) %test_category: “Get Information.PMI.GDT”; #4}
when, based on the determining, there is no checker in the checker database, determining whether there is at least one checker in the checker database that can be modified is modifiable; and
{see at least p14 UGII_CHECKMATE_DEFAULT_CHECKER can be used to identify one or more checkers or profiles that should be added to the “Chosen Tests” list by default. p55 The main trick when modifying existing checks is finding new Check-Mate(and/or core Knowledge Fusion) functions that perform the tasks you need.}
when there is at least one checker in the checker database, obtaining the at least one checker for validating the product and manufacturing information from the checker database. {{see at least p14 UGII_CHECKMATE_DEFAULT_CHECKER can be used to identify one or more checkers or profiles that should be added to the “Chosen Tests” p96 Anatomy of a Check-Mate Profile DefClass: %my_profile_class (%ug_base_checker_profile); #2 (String) %test_category: “Get Information.PMI.GDT”; #4}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PEN/ MAC and CMA. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to perform the validation with a suitable checker, either existing or with one that may be adapted to be suitable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PEN/MAC/CMA.
Regarding claims 4(3), 11(10), 18(17) PEN/MAC/CMA teaches the limitations of the parent claim. CMA further teaches
wherein determining whether there is at least one checker in the checker database that can be modified is modifiable comprises: when there is at least one checker that is modifiable, modifying the one or more logical elements of the at least one checker in a manner that the modified checker is capable of validating the product and manufacturing information; and {CMA p9, create/edit checkers, or configure a checker using the Knowledge Fusion Language (KF) to define rules, specify standards, and determine executions; p14 UGII_CHECKMATE_DEFAULT_CHECKER can be used to identify one or more checkers or profiles that should be added to the “Chosen Tests” list by default. p55 The main trick when modifying existing checks is finding new Check-Mate(and/or core Knowledge Fusion) functions that perform the tasks you need. p96 Anatomy of a Check-Mate Profile DefClass: %my_profile_class (%ug_base_checker_profile); #2 (String) %test_category: “Get Information.PMI.GDT”; #4}
Capable of validating the PMI is interpreted as finding the functions that perform the task you need (which in context is implicitly the PMI).
when there is no checker in the checker database, generating a checker for validating the product and manufacturing information associated with the geometric model of the physical object. { CMA p55 Creating New Checks from Scratch}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PEN/MAC/CMA and further teaching of CMA One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to perform the validation with a suitable checker, and would be obvious to try to modifying an existing one or creating a new one as being the only options.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PEN/MAC/CMA.
Regarding claims 5(4), 12(11), 19(18) PEN/MAC/CMA teaches the limitations of the parent claim. MAC further teaches
wherein generating the checker for validating the product and manufacturing information associated with the geometric model comprises: determining at least one standard associated with the validation of the product and manufacturing information based on the type of the product and manufacturing information; {Detailed description 5th para { Generally, a designer (e.g., a person developing the part and its features) can manually identify certain information (e.g., product and manufacturing information (PMI) for parts in the first model. The details can be used to to help manufacture the part, for example, each hole may have PMI information indicating the dimensions of the hole, tolerances for different objects (e.g., faces, edges, holes, etc.), orientation, location, runout, etc. In some embodiments, PMI may adhere to standards such as ASME Y14.41-2003 Digital Product Data Definition Practices and ISO 1101: 2004 Geometric Product Specification (GPS) - Shape and Position Tolerance - Shape, Direction, Location and Run Tolerance PMI objects are validated so that in the PMI included annotations and lines may exist in a manner that appears natural and / or in accordance with standards.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PEN/MAC/CMA and further teaching of MAC One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to perform the validation with a suitable checker, and compliance with standards is a natural choice.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PEN/MAC/CMA.
CMA further teaches
generating at least one standard compliant criterion for validating the product and manufacturing information; identifying the one or more logical elements from a plurality of logical elements based on the at least one standard compliant criterion; and generating the at least one checker for validating the product and manufacturing information using the one or more logical elements.{ p. 9 Check-Mate is a powerful tool for checking the quality of NX models. A “check” is a small piece of logic that looks for a particular condition within a model. p11. Configuring, modifying checker and profiles using interactive dialogs in NX Check-Mate.p60 Expressions, Conditional Statements, Child & Child List Rulesp107 Knowledge Fusion Add Attribute dialog; p112 Add Atribute; Add Child Rule }
In BRI the claim recites determine a standard for validating PMI, generate a criterion for validation, identify the logic that verifies criteria and generate the checker for validation. The combination PEN/MAC/CMA was shown to determine the standard and use it for determining the verification. CMA illustrates how this can be done in the tool, with a checker that is a series of logical elements, rules and comparisons. It is focused on the editing/authoring but shows how attributes can be changed to reflect the generation/creation of a new checker. The fact that the checker logic needs to implement the logic of the standard is implicit in view that the validation intended is against a standard.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PEN/MAC/CMA and further teaching of CMA of using the tool to perform the actions of getting a compliant checker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of following logical steps of substitution of a part that does not do a function with a part that does the function and using a tool that is designed to facilitate the process.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PEN/MAC/CMA.
Regarding claims 6(4), 13(11), 20(18) PEN/MAC/CMA teaches the limitations of the parent claim. MAC further teaches
wherein modifying the one or more logical elements of the at least one checker comprises: determining at least one standard associated with the validation of the product and manufacturing information based on the type of the product and manufacturing information; {Detailed description 5th para { Generally, a designer (e.g., a person developing the part and its features) can manually identify certain information (e.g., product and manufacturing information (PMI) for parts in the first model. The details can be used to to help manufacture the part, for example, each hole may have PMI information indicating the dimensions of the hole, tolerances for different objects (e.g., faces, edges, holes, etc.), orientation, location, runout, etc. In some embodiments, PMI may adhere to standards such as ASME Y14.41-2003 Digital Product Data Definition Practices and ISO 1101: 2004 Geometric Product Specification (GPS) - Shape and Position Tolerance - Shape, Direction, Location and Run Tolerance PMI objects are validated so that in the PMI included annotations and lines may exist in a manner that appears natural and / or in accordance with standards.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PEN/MAC/CMA and further teaching of MAC One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to perform the validation with a suitable checker, and compliance with standards is a natural choice.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PEN/MAC/CMA.
CMA further teaches
generating at least one standard compliant criterion for validating the product and manufacturing information; identifying the one or more logical elements from a plurality of logical elements based on the at least one standard compliant criteria; CMA {p. 9 Check-Mate is a powerful tool for checking the quality of NX models. A “check” is a small piece of logic that looks for a particular condition within a model. p11. Configuring, modifying checker and profiles using interactive dialogs in NX Check-Mate.p60 Expressions, Conditional Statements, Child & Child List Rules}
determining at least one logical elements which element that needs to be substituted in the at least one checker based on the at least one standard compliant criterion; and modifying the at least one checker, the modifying of the at least one checker comprising replacing the identified one or more logical elements with at least one logical element that needs to be substituted.{p50-52 Modifying an Existing Check to Create a New Check; p51 Edit the Test Category from the default “Modeling.Features” p52 We will make a few simple changes to this checker to make it look for suppressed features instead of unparameterized features.; 54 Test the checker against the valid features, and confirm that the part passes the checker successfully. P56 Searching first in the list of existing checkers to choose a checker that is at least close – one that either: a. Deals with the same kind of entity being considered (Component, layer, solid, point, etc.) or… b. Has a similar logical function}
In BRI the claim recites determine a standard for validating PMI, generate a criterion for validation, identify the logic that verifies criteria and change the checker logical elements to reflect criteria.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PEN/MAC/CMA and further teaching of CMA of using the tool to perform the actions of getting a compliant checker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of following logical steps of substitution of a part that does not do a function with a part that does the function and using a tool that is designed to facilitate the process.
Claims 7, 14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al, A new method for interoperability and conformance checking of product manufacturing information, Computers and Electrical Engineering Vol 85, July 2020, 106650 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004579062030505X (“PEN”) in view of DE 102019133846 A1 (published 2020-06-10) MACHALICA et al (“MAC”) In further view of NIST GCR 15-999 Measuring the PMI Modeling Capability in CAD Systems: Report 3 - Fully-Toleranced Test Case Verification http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-999 (“NIS”)
Regarding claims 7 (1), 14(8), 21(15) PEN/MAC teaches the limitations of the parent claim. PEN further teaches
wherein validating the extracted product and manufacturing information using the at least one checker, checker comprises: comparing the product and manufacturing information with standard compliant criterion using the one or more logical elements in the at least one checker; {p1 bottom - STEP File Analyzer and Viewer [4] is a software package designed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is used to measure the ability of CAD software to conform to the standard of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) for PMI, especially with respect to geometric dimensions and tolerances. This software primarily tests the correctness of neutral STEP files exported by CAD for syntax, structure and semantics of PMI implementation [5] ; p3 In these test cases, the geometry and tolerance experts define the PMI constructs based on the 2D drawings standards and 3D models of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standards. ; p9 top To realize the compatibility of PMI in- formation, the data of ABox are taken from the neutral file outputted by the corresponding CAD software, and the ABox data used to test the PMI capability of each CAD manufacturer are based on the set of test cases supplied by the recommended practices. P120 Certain checks may need access to external data (e.g.: spreadsheets or ODB) for comparison rules.} Logical elements in checker interpreted as comparison rules in the checker.
PEN/MAC does not teach however NIS teaches
determining whether the product and manufacturing information matches the standard compliant criterion; {p2 This process verifies that the product definition data is complete, consistent, and conformant to relevant standards. They recommend that the process of determining whether the data in a derivative model is equivalent to the native model should be called validation. This process validates that all data has been translated with any digital variation within acceptable limits specified by the anticipated downstream processes.
when, based on the determining, the product and manufacturing information matches the standard compliant criterion, generating a signal indicating that the product and manufacturing information is successfully validated; and when, based on the determining, the product and manufacturing information does not match the standard compliant criterion, generating a signal indicating failure to validate the product and manufacturing information. { NIS p2 This process verifies that the product definition data is complete, consistent, and conformant to relevant standards. They recommend that the process of determining whether the data in a derivative model is equivalent to the native model should be called validation. This process validates that all data has been translated with any digital variation within acceptable limits specified by the anticipated downstream processes.P104 building a detailed message to display in the validation results. P105 The 3rd argument is the error string which the user will see in the validation results when the test fails. }
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of PEN/MAC/CMA with further teachings of CMA. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of obtaining compliances with standard-supported criteria and to notify the user (via a signal/message) what the status is.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over PEN/MAC/NIS.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DE 102019133080 A1
20180349546
DE 102019133266 A1
US 20180322097 A1
US 20180239334 A1
US 20180268536 A1
US 20180349518 A1
NIST GCR 15-999 Measuring the PMI Modeling Capability in CAD Systems: Report 3 - Fully-Toleranced Test Case Verification
NIST Advanced Manufacturing Series 100-10 Guide to the NIST PMI CAD Models and CAD System PMI Modeling Capability Verification Testing Results
Pratt et al Towards the standardized exchange of parameterized feature-based CAD models, Computer-Aided Design 37 2005
Lipman et al Conformance checking of PMI representation in CAD model STEP data
exchange files, Computer-Aided Design 37 2015
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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 Pitaro can be reached on (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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights