DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-17 have been presented for examination based on the response filed on 4/16/2026.
Claim(s)1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solidworks: What’s new Solidworks 2016 (Pgs.231, submitted by applicant, referred to as Solidworks hereafter), in view of US 20200184119 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solidworks: What’s new Solidworks 2016 (Pgs.231, submitted by applicant, referred to as Solidworks hereafter), in view of US 20200184119 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz, further in view of US 20080269942 A1 by Free; David Mitchell.
This action is made Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.5-8:
PNG
media_image1.png
254
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) Solidworks is directed on Pgs.60-62 to detailing auto-repair of the missing mate reference based on finding the candidate providing missing information. Examiner agrees that this process is not automatic. The repair to all instance is auto-repair. The decision to substitute is manual. I.e. the user makes the decision based on FeatureManager to perform Replace Mate Entities as indicated by applicant in citing Pg.60-62. As indicated on office action (Pg.6 referring to Solidworks Pg.224-226) comparison to determine same feature would be required.
Even if so that Solidworks only teaches manually instantiating the repair/ replacement, MPEP 2144.04 states regarding making it automatic as not being sufficient to overcome the prior art:
III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.)
The claims do not recite any details how making the repair and replacement automatic would be any different than manually performing repair and replacement.
(Argument 2) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.:
PNG
media_image2.png
386
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Response 2) First the feature comparison is taught in Solidworks (Pgs.224-226) for the repair with known feature as mapped in Solidworks (Pgs.60-61). As indicated Solidworks does not make it automatic. Constrains are the feature values that are missing and repaired in the Solidworks based on another
PNG
media_image3.png
621
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Machalica argument about feature values(/or missing constraints) are piecemeal analysis on the rejection. PMI model does have attributes (no specific attributes are claimed) which are missing
PNG
media_image4.png
688
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and are automatically replaced (as shown above). Further Machalica as mapped [0073]-[0074] additionally states:
PNG
media_image5.png
414
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
No new arguments are made for claims 9 & 17 or the dependent claims. Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s)1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solidworks: What’s new Solidworks 2016 (Pgs.231, submitted by applicant, referred to as Solidworks hereafter), in view of US 20200184119 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz.
Regarding Claims 1, 9
Solidworks teaches (Claim 1). A computer aided drafting (CAD) system (Solidworks: Pg.188 1st bullet teaching the processors used by the CAD software system) comprising:
(Claim 9). A method for automatically repairing a reference corresponding to a missing constraint of a component feature, the constraint missing from the component of a modeled assembly in a computer aided drafting (CAD) environment based on a modification to the assembly (Solidworks: Pg.188 1st bullet teaching the processors used by the CAD software system performing missing attribute replacement Pgs.60-62), the method comprising the steps of:
a processor (Solidworks: Pg.188 1st bullet teaching the processors used by the CAD software system) and a memory containing non-transient instructions (Solidworks: Pg.202 e.g. code "... The program creates automatically edge-to-edge bonded contact sets for pairs of shell edges within a certain gap distance set in Maximum Clearance . The valid pairs of edges belonging to shell or sheet metal bodies are...") that, when executed by the processor, run an auto-repair application for automatically repairing a reference corresponding to a missing constraint of a component feature, the constraint missing from the component of a modeled assembly in the (CAD) system based on a modification to the assembly (Solidworks: Pgs.60-62 detailing auto-repair of the missing mate reference – notice the claim is not directed to repairing due to missing mate reference, but to broader missing constraint-not specific to mating) , the auto-repair application configured to:
identify a first component where the reference indicates the missing component feature belongs (Solidworks: Pg.60-62, specifically on Pg.61 item 5 showing "... The What's Wrong dialog box informs you that two mates, Concentric1 and Concentric2, are missing a mate entity....") ;
identify a solid or surface body of the first component (Solidworks: Pg.60 Item 1
PNG
media_image6.png
186
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
170
338
media_image7.png
Greyscale
) ;
identify a candidate replacement feature of the first solid or surface body (Solidworks: Pg.61 identification of the solid surface
PNG
media_image8.png
688
768
media_image8.png
Greyscale
) ;
Machalica teaches processor (Machalica: [0036]-[0037][0053]) and a memory containing non-transient instructions (Machalica: [0036]-[0037][0049]) that, when executed by the processor, run an auto-repair application (Machalica : [0028]"... [0028] To increase efficiency and/or prevent the inaccuracies that may otherwise result from having an engineer manually label a drawing with suitable PMI objects or manually specify attributes of a part or assembly, present embodiments include systems and methods for automatically assigning attributes to a model (of a part or assembly) and/or automatically assigning PMI objects to a model without dependency on human subjectivity. In this manner, present embodiments help transform a traditionally subjective process of assigning PMI objects and/or attributes, traditionally performed by humans, into a mathematically automated process that executable via a process-based device....") …:
compare the candidate replacement feature with the missing feature (Machalica: Fig.6-9; [0055]-[0074]) ; and
if the candidate comparison meets a predetermined criteria, replace the missing constraint reference with a reference of the candidate replacement feature (Machalica: Specifically [0059] predetermined criteria as threshold or predetermined level - "... In one embodiment, the CAD system 32 may query the database of reference models 70 and compare the characteristics of the deficient model 71 (e.g., based on the analysis [process block 92]) to corresponding characteristics of one or more reference models 70. In this manner, the CAD system 32 may identify or determine (process block 94) a reference model 70 that is substantially similar (e.g., within thresholds or predetermined levels of similarity, as discussed in detail below) to the model with missing associated attributes. For example, in response to the analysis (process block 92) of the deficient model 71, whereby the geometric characteristics, namely the surface-area-to-volume ratio, the number of faces, and the weighted point sets, are determined, the CAD system 32 may identify (process block 94) reference model(s) 70 that have a similar geometric characteristics...."; Fig.6-9; [0055]-[0074])
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Machalica to Solidworks to improve and refine the generation of product and manufacturing information (PMI) (Machalica : [0031] "... to improve the generation of PMI objects on part drawings or to improve the assignment of attributes to a part....") complementing the Solidworks, further reducing user intervention to find a comparative reference models to improve attribute (missing) assignments (Solidworks: Pgs.60-62; Machalica : [0051] "...Present embodiments include assigning PMI objects associated with the features of the reference model 70 (determined to substantially match) to the corresponding features of the model with missing PMI objects, ..."; [0031] "... The CAx system 10 may additionally provide for verification and/or validation processes 20 that may include automated inspection of the part or product as well as automated comparison of specifications, requirements, and the like...."). Further motivation to combine would have been that Machalica and Solidworks are analogous art to the instant invention in the in field of CAD modeling and CAD model attribute correction (Solidworks: Pg.60-62; Machalica: [0055-[0074]).
Regarding Claims 2 & 10
Solidworks also teaches replacing the missing features as shown (Pg.60-62), but the comparison (Pg.224-226) step is not explicitly disclosed in the context to find a comparative reference model. The orientation and location of the candidate model (left) and reference model (right) is same in Pg.61:
PNG
media_image9.png
253
499
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, this ability to compare to find right candidate deficiency is cured by Machalica below.
Machalica teaches wherein the candidate comparison further comprises: comparing the orientation of the candidate replacement feature with the orientation of the missing feature (Machalica: Fig.10 showing orientation of the missing features as orientation of the holes in the candidate 71 vs reference found in the database 260 & [0075]-[0079]) ; and comparing the location of the candidate replacement feature with the location of the missing feature (Machalica: [0075]-[0079] specifically see [0077] "... The CAD system 32 may query the database 260 to determine (process block 226) the PMI data 76 of PMI objects 80 respectively associated with the features 250 missing PMI objects 80. In this example, the CAD system 32 determines that the first through hole 251 is associated with a first PMI object 80X (e.g., based upon PMI data 76), the second through hole 252 is associated with a second PMI object 80Y (e.g., based upon PMI data 76 from the reference model 70), and the third through hole 253 is associated with a third PMI object 80Z (e.g., based upon PMI data 76). The CAD system 32 may then assign (process block 228) PMI objects 80 (in this example, the first PMI object 80X, the second PMI object 80Y, and the third PMI object 80Z), whereby the initial deficiencies associated with PMI objects 80 on the model are remedied...." – where the location/orientation are part of the measurements in 80X, 80Y and 80Z for the missing PMI features of the candidate) .
Regarding Claims 3 & 11
Solidworks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the missing feature comprises a face (Solidworks: See Pg.61 showing missing face
PNG
media_image9.png
253
499
media_image9.png
Greyscale
) .
Regarding Claims 4 & 12
Solidworks teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the face consists of one of the group of a planar face, a cylindrical face, a conical face, a toroidal face, and a spherical face (Solidworks: As seen above Pg.61 shows the face is toroidal face) .
Regarding Claims 5 & 13
Solidworks teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the comparing further comprises determining the features are coplanar (Solidworks: The upper end of the toroidal surface are coplanar for comparison
PNG
media_image10.png
253
499
media_image10.png
Greyscale
) . Machalica also shows comparing holes in Fig.10 geometric features 251-253 which are coplanar.
Regarding Claims 6 & 14
Solidworks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the missing feature comprises an edge (Solidworks: Pg.61 here the missing edge would be the ones missing) .
PNG
media_image11.png
198
539
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 7 & 15
Solidworks teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the edge consists of one of the group of a linear edge, a curved edge, a reference axis, a circular edge, a spline, and an ellipse (Solidworks: Pg.61 here the missing edge would be the ones missing – namely the curved edge and the base/top circular edge as it pertains to the toroidal 3D structure:
PNG
media_image11.png
198
539
media_image11.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claims 8 & 16
Machalica teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the auto-repair application further configured to:
if the candidate comparison fails the predetermined criteria (Machalica teaches: [0060]-[0063] shows that similarity matching may have percentage based matching i.e. some part may not match) : identify a reference feature in the first component that matches a parameter of the missing feature (Machalica teaches: [0061]-[0062] matching is based on each geometric characteristic (feature) matching with reference geometric characteristic) ; compare the reference feature with the missing feature (Machalica teaches: [0061]-[0062] comparison is based on each geometric characteristic (feature) matching with reference geometric characteristic); and if the reference feature comparison meets the predetermined criteria, replace the missing constraint reference with the reference feature (Machalica teaches: [0060]-[0063] replacement is made based geometric characteristics (feature) matching, rather than whole component matching (meaning all feature match) based on a threshold) .
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solidworks: What’s new Solidworks 2016 (Pgs.231, submitted by applicant, referred to as Solidworks hereafter), in view of US 20200184119 A1 by MACHALICA; Dawid Tadeusz, further in view of US 20080269942 A1 by Free; David Mitchell.
Regarding Claim 17
Teachings of Solidworks and Machalica are shown in the parent claim 9. Machalica teaches comparison/intersection based on volume but does not specifically teach bounding box.
Free teaches method of claim 9, wherein identifying the candidate replacement feature of the first solid or surface body further comprises the steps of: calculating a first bounding box having dimensions and coordinates containing the missing feature (Claim interpretation, since the missing features are in the candidate the first bounding box is also related to candidate; Free: Fig.4 shows the first bounding box for the candidate; Also see Fig,8 showing geometry based search 135 engine searching based on the bounding box 200 (from Fig.7A-7B)) , computing second bounding box a solid or surface body of the component (Free: Fig.8 bounding box based comparative models 200A, 200B…) ; and identifying an intersection between the first bounding box and the second bounding box (Free: Fig.8 See element 805 showing intersection as reference model with matched bounding box search parameter).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Free to Machalica and Solidworks. The motivation to combine would have been that Free complements teachings of Machalica (Machalica: [0061]-[0063][0067]) by further defining how the comparison is made based on bounding box (Free: Figs.8-10, [0143]-[0176]) and are analogous art to the instant claim in the field of model comparison to find similar model based on bounding box/volume/geometric characteristics.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Friday, June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights