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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 remain pending, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/1/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/1/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the present claims are directed to an assistance system for assisting communication between a user and a supplier by presenting an annotation screen. The Applicant argues the difficulties of subtle and accurate instructions between remote parties, and solving it with an article screen that is displayed on either the user terminal or the supplier terminal with various annotation information. On page 9, it is argued that the present claims provide a unique and efficient way of communication between the user and the supplier when manufacturing an article of using a 3D model.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Communication between two parties does not represent a technical activity, but is an interaction between people, which falls under the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. The annotating of the article in a three-dimensional coordinate system and sending an image of the article with the annotations does not represent any technical functionality, this is not different from marking a 3D perspective CAD drawing and mailing it to the supplier. While the claims do recite changing the point of view, the claims do not recite any changes or improvements to 3D modeling and the technology of it. The claim limitation merely applies generic CAD functions to the abstract idea to provide a general link to a computing environment, such that the abstract idea is performed on a computer. The claims, alone or in combination, are directed to the abstract idea of marking a design to relay notes to a supplier, and implementing it on a computer.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/1/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claim 8 is directed to a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, which is an article of manufacture. Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claims 1-9 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations (emphasized in bold) reciting the abstract idea of annotating a drawing to present to a user or supplier:
acquire three-dimensional model data of the article based on an instruction by the user;
present one of the user and the supplier with an article screen, which expresses the article as observed from a predetermined point of view in a three-dimensional data coordinate system, based on the three-dimensional model data;
generate annotation data for displaying an annotation screen obtained by writing annotation information on the presented article screen so that the annotation data includes point of view information which specifies the point of view from which the article displayed on the article screen has been observed;
acquire the generated annotation data including the point of view information;
present another of the user and the supplier with the annotation screen based on the acquired annotation data from a point of view corresponding to the point of view information included in the annotation data;
allow the other of the user and the supplier to change the point of view corresponding to the point of view information included in the annotation data;
The recited limitations above set forth the abstract idea of annotating a drawing to present to a user or supplier. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. business relations, etc.). The claims recite steps for annotating a drawing in various points of view to instruct a supplier regarding the article, which are business relations.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recites additional limitations in the claims, such as:
a processor;
three-dimensional model;
an article screen;
an annotation screen;
present another of the user and the supplier with the annotation screen;
by a designation operation on the annotation screen.
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Secondly, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a processor, the processor is recited at a very high level of generality, and is only recited as a preamble of the claim limitations as being configured to perform the steps of the claim.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106.04(d)). Paragraph [0022] of the specification define the processor as being a CPU or an MPU to control the server. As such, it is any generic computer process that only serves to generally link the abstract idea to a computing environment. Furthermore, the claims recite a three-dimensional model and various screens (interfaces). However, the claims are not directed to any technology regarding the generation of a three-dimensional model or any kind of interface functionality. The specification is also silent to any of the underlying technology of the three-dimensional model and interfaces. The closest disclosure comes in paragraph [0033], which discloses the three-dimensional model data is uploaded. The model and interface technology are generic elements that are merely applied to the abstract idea, such that the abstract idea may be performed in a computer setting.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claims 8 (computer-readable non-transitory storage medium): Claim 8 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9 (method): Claim 9 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 9 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm for annotating a drawing to present to a user or supplier. Thus, each of claims 2-7 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-7 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-7 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2-7 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-7 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-7 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-7 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Byers (US 20180268614 A1) in view of Sawyer (US 20200218858 A1), and in further view of Miller (US 20130120367 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Byers discloses a system comprising:
a processor; Byers discloses a processor for implementing the system (Byers: [0033]).
the processor configured to acquire three-dimensional model data of the article based on an instruction by the user; Byers discloses creating a drawing or model of the part (Byers: [0025-0026]; see also: [0005]; [0046]).
the processor is configured to present one of the user and the supplier with an article screen, which expresses the article as observed from a predetermined point of view in a three-dimensional data coordinate system, based on the three-dimensional model data; Byers discloses specified views of the part, including a front view or a rear view, and in a 3D view with a coordinate system if three orthogonal axes (Byers: [0047]; [0073]; see also: [0005]; [0090-0091]; Fig. 7, #2,4,6).
the processor is configured to generate annotation data for displaying an annotation screen obtained by writing annotation information on the presented article screen so that the annotation data includes point of view information which specifies the point of view from which the article displayed on the article screen has been observed; Byers discloses adding PMI objects to the view such that the PMI objects are oriented normal to a vector associated with the specific orientation view (Byers: [0086]; see also: [0024]; [0048]; [0092]).
the processor is configured to acquire the generated annotation data including the point of view information; Byers discloses retrieving the PMI objects are retrieved from storage, the drawings including the perspective view of orthogonal axes (Byers: [0094]; [0073]; see also: [0050]; [0062]; [0090]; Fig. 7, #2,4,6).
Byers does not explicitly teach a system comprising:
the processor is configured to present another of the user and the supplier with the annotation screen based on the acquired annotation data from a point of view corresponding to the point of view information included in the annotation data;
the processor is configured to allow the other of the user and the supplier to change the point of view corresponding to the point of view information included in the annotation data by a designation operation on the annotation screen.
Notably, however, Byers does disclose interfacing with supplier/vendor systems and a collaboration layer for sharing information (Byers: [0038]).
To that accord, Sawyer does teach the processor is configured to present another of the user and the supplier with the annotation screen based on the acquired annotation data from a point of view corresponding to the point of view information included in the annotation data. Sawyer teaches sending and providing the supplier/manufacturer with the annotated files (Sawyer: [0075]; see also: [0043]; [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Byers disclosing a system for annotating a model at specified orientations with the presenting of the annotation screen to another user or supplier as taught by Sawyer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to quote or describe complicated manufacturing jobs (Sawyer: [0075]).
Byers in view of Sawyer does not explicitly teach the processor is configured to allow the other of the user and the supplier to change the point of view corresponding to the point of view information included in the annotation data by a designation operation on the annotation screen. Notably, however, Byers does disclose the changing of the orientation of the part (Byers: [0098]).
To that accord, Miller does teach the processor is configured to allow the other of the user and the supplier to change the point of view corresponding to the point of view information included in the annotation data by a designation operation on the annotation screen. Miller teaches a shared view of a 3D model where a user can request control and change a position, orientation, or angle of the model viewing perspective (Miller: [0042]; see also: [0024]; [0068]; [0070]; Fig. 5, #252,265).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Byers disclosing a system for annotating a model at specified orientations with the other user changing the point of view as taught by Miller. One of ordinary skill in the rt would have been motivated to do so in order to collaboratively develop them model and refer to specific points of reference to other users (Miller: [0008]).
Regarding Claim 2: Byers in view of Sawyer and Miller disclose the limitations of claim 1 above.
Byers further discloses the article to be displayed as observed from another point of view which differs from the point of view based on an instruction by the user or the supplier. Byers discloses orienting the part to another desired orientation view from the original view (Byers: [0091]; see also: [0005]; [0047]).
Regarding Claim 3: Byers in view of Sawyer and Miller discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Byers does not explicitly teach generates the annotation data so as to include an article image expressing the article as observed from the point of view and the annotation information to be presented together with the article image. Notably, however, Byers does disclose where the model or drawing contains the PMI objects and desired orientation view (Byers: [0047]).
To that accord, Sawyer does teach generates the annotation data so as to include an article image expressing the article as observed from the point of view and the annotation information to be presented together with the article image. Sawyer teaches an annotated file in image form of one or more views with the textual data (Sawyer: [0073]; see also: [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Byers disclosing a system for annotating a model at specified orientations with the annotation data to include an article image expressing the article from the point of view as taught by Sawyer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide instructions that are more unified and accurate (Sawyer: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 4: Byers in view of Sawyer and Miller disclose the limitations of claim 1 above.
Byers further discloses generates the annotation data from a specific point of view which is specified from among the plurality of points of view based on an instruction by the user or the supplier. Examiner notes that Applicant recites or in the claim. Byers discloses the user setting the desired orientation view, and the PMI objects aligning to the orientation view (Byers: [0083]; see also: [0005]).
Regarding Claim 5: Byers in view of Sawyer and Miller disclose the limitations of claim 1 above.
Byers further discloses wherein:
the article-related service includes an article manufacturing service which requires manufacturing of the article by the supplier as the work; Byers discloses a manufacturing processes and interfacing with suppliers/vendors (Byers: [0038]; see also: [0030]).
the annotation information indicates a request by the user related to at least a part of a manufacturing condition to be instructed with respect to the manufacturing of the article. Byers discloses requirements and specifications, including certifications, quality control requirements, and performance requirements for the part (Byers: [0035]).
Regarding Claim 6: Byers in view of Sawyer and Miller disclose the limitations of claim 1 above.
Byers further discloses provide a function of the communication to the user and the supplier. Byers discloses providing business support such as interfacing with supplier/vendor systems, and a collaborative layer for sharing information (Byers: [0038]).
Regarding Claim 7: Byers in view of Sawyer and Miller disclose the limitations of claim 1 above.
Byers further discloses wherein:
acquires a work condition, which designates a condition of work to be performed by a supplier with respect to the article, based on an instruction by the user; Byers discloses requirements and specifications, including certifications, quality control requirements, and performance requirements for the part (Byers: [0035]).
the assistance system further has a memory configured to store determination information, which indicates a provision requirement for providing the article-related service by the supplier and includes the annotation information, so that the user and the supplier enables to confirm the determination information. Byers discloses the requirements entered into the system with drawings, notes, PMI objects, etc. and business support such as interfacing with supplier/vendor systems, and a collaborative layer for sharing the information and files (Byers: [0035]; [0038]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9: Claims 8 and 9 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688