DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to an application filed on 11/21/22 and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-21 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
Application 63/281,834 filed on 11/22/2021.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1, 11-13 and 21
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 11-13 and 21 are directed towards a method, a system and a medium which has the claim fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “constructing a helical curve and start and end circles for a threaded feature in a 3D modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and identifying a boundary of the trimmed helical curve”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and displaying a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a computer. The computer would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and displaying a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 11
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 11 recites “construct a helical curve and start and end circles for a threaded feature in a 3D modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “trim the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “identify a boundary of the trimmed helical curve”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and display a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a processor and memory. The processor and memory would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and display a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and memory amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 12
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 12 recites “construct a helical curve and start and end circles for a threaded feature in a 3D modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “trim the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “identify a boundary of the trimmed helical curve” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and display a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a processor and medium. The processor and medium would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and display a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 13
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 13 recites “establishing a thread definition for the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 “processing data from the thread definition to support creating the visual representation of the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “and constructing thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “determining whether the thread definition identifies the visual representation as a cosmetic thread or a physical thread”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “constructing a helical curve and start and end circles for the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites “identifying a boundary of the trimmed helical curve”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and constructing thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the constructing is being conducted or what the thread definition and processing data are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and displaying, on a computer display, the cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a computer and processor. The computer and processor would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and constructing thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the constructing is being conducted or what the thread definition and processing data are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and displaying, on a computer display, the cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer and processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 20
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 20 recites “establish a thread definition for the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “process data from the thread definition to support creating the visual representation of the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “and construct thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “determining whether the thread definition identifies the visual representation as a cosmetic thread or a physical thread”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “constructing a helical curve and start and end circles for the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20 recites “identifying a boundary of the trimmed helical curve”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and construct thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the constructing is being conducted or what the thread definition and processing data are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and displaying, on a computer display, the cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer, a processor and memory. The computer, a processor and memory would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of and construct thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the constructing is being conducted or what the thread definition and processing data are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and displaying, on a computer display, the cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer, a processor and memory amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 21
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 21 recites “establishing a thread definition for the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites “processing data from the thread definition to support creating the visual representation of the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites “and constructing thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites “determining whether the thread definition identifies the visual representation as a cosmetic thread or a physical thread”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites “constructing a helical curve and start and end circles for the threaded feature”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites “trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites “identifying a boundary of the trimmed helical curve”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and constructing thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the constructing is being conducted or what the thread definition and processing data are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and displaying, on a computer display, the cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer, a processor and medium. The computer, a processor and medium would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and constructing thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the constructing is being conducted or what the thread definition and processing data are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and displaying, on a computer display, the cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer, a processor and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “intersecting a cylindrical envelope of the helical curve with a neighboring face of a surface of the threaded feature.”. The intersecting involves calculation using an intersecting algorithm, see Pg. 31 lines 4-10 of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “designating an intersection between the cylindrical envelope and the neighboring face of the surface of the threaded feature as the boundary of the trimmed helical curve.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “establishing a thread definition for the threaded feature”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 4 recites “and processing data from the thread definition to support creating the visual representation of the threaded feature.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “receiving data from a computer-based user interface identifying a material type, a geometry type, a length option, and a direction type for the threaded feature”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 5 recites “and receiving data from the computer-based user interface identifying a start edge on the modelled object for the threaded feature.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the material type specifies whether the thread is to be formed by cutting material or adding material, the geometry type specifies whether the thread is to be a cosmetic thread or a physical thread, the length option specifies whether the length of the thread is to be blind or limited by a certain geometry, and the direction type specifies whether the thread is to left-handed or right-handed.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “calculating a length of the thread if the thread definition indicates that the length of the thread is limited by certain geometry.”. This limitation is calculating a length of the thread if the thread definition indicates that the length of the thread is limited by certain geometry. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “enlarging a geometry of the modelled object by thickening to produce an enlarged geometry of the modelled object if the thread definition indicates that the thread is to be formed by adding material.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate what the thread definition is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites “trimming the helical curve to conform to the enlarged geometry of the modelled object if the thread definition indicates that the thread is to be formed by adding material.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “retrieving values of thread pitch and thread major diameter from data stored in computer- based memory”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 10 recites “and calculating thread height and minor diameter based on the thread pitch and thread major diameter.”. This limitation is calculating thread height and minor diameter. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 recites “constructing a thread profile”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 14 recites “constructing a sweeping spine containing a helical curve and start and end curves”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 14 recites “sweeping the thread profile along the spine to create a thread tool body”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper, see Pg. 31 lines 17-22 of the specification. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 14 recites “and modifying a geometry of a portion of the modelled object based on the thread tool body”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the modifying is occurring or what the portion of the modeled object is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claim 14 recites “and merging the modified geometry with a previous geometry of the modelled object via a union operation.”. It’s unclear what the phrase “union operation is from the claim limitation and specification, see Pg. 40 lines 4-8 of the specification. The limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 recites “determining a diameter of the threaded feature, a thread starting location, and thread direction”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 15 recites “identifying an applicable standard”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 15 recites “or receiving user input to define one or more thread parameters including thread pitch and thread major diameter”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 15 recites “calculating a thread height and thread minor diameter based on the one or more thread parameters”. This limitation is calculating a thread height and thread minor diameter. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 15 recites “and calculating a thread length if the thread definition indicates that the thread length is limited by certain geometry.”. This limitation is calculating a thread length. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 16
Dependent claim 16 recites “storing a common data holding definition that is applicable whether the visual representation is a cosmetic thread or a physical thread.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 17
Dependent claim 17 recites “wherein the common data holding definition stores data from the thread definition for the threaded feature, and results from the processing of the data from the thread definition for the threaded feature.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 18
Dependent claim 18 recites “presenting, on the computer display, with an image of the modelled object having the cosmetic thread or with an image of the modelled object having the physical thread, an interactive element, that, when interacted with, causes the computer to switch images.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 19
Dependent claim 19 recites “providing a single interface from which the user can choose to display a cosmetic thread or a physical thread resulting in a single feature in the model's history rather than two discreet features that need to be manually suppressed or unsuppressed.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 1-21 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over online reference Active Learning in Mechanical Engineering Education using Innovative Software Tool Integrated in SolidWorks, written by Georgiev et al. in view of online reference 3D Finite Element Modeling of an Assembly Process With Thread Forming Screw, written by Mathurin et al. in further view of Banta et al. (EP 3011468).
With respect to claim 1, Georgiev et al. discloses “A computer-based method of creating a visual representation of a threaded feature on a three-dimensional (3D) modelled object in a computer-aided design environment” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 2nd paragraph, “This paper presents, an integrated software tool for automated generation of thread and screw 3D model in the SolidWorks CAD system accordingly to the standards. The tool generates surfaces and solids bodies. Using the surface bodies generated by the software tool, the profiles of the thread turning tools used to machining the real threaded workpiece are automatically created.”)];
“constructing a helical curve” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 2 Thread Terminology, 1st paragraph, “The important terminology, related to this work is presented as follows: Helix - curve on the surface of a cylinder for which the ratio of the travel in the axial direction to the rotary angle around the axis is constant; Lead angle of helix (φ) – acute angle between the tangent of a helix and the plane perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder; Pitch cylinder – imaginary cylinder whose surface cuts a parallel screw thread where the widths of the ridge and the groove of the thread are equal”)];
“and start and end circles for a threaded feature in a 3D modelled object” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 4, left col., 3rd paragraph, “The feature group for solid body generation contains the helixes for the second, third and fourth start of multi-start thread along with thread profile sketches for the respective start of the thread. These features use only logical relations with the sketch of the Real profile and the helix of the first start. After that, a cylindrical body with the thread major diameter and a height, corresponding to the number of revolutions, is created.”, The examiner considers the start of the revolutions as being the start and end circles for a threaded feature, since the thread diameter and height are based on the number of revolutions that are created)];
While Georgiev et al. teaches constructing a helical curve and start and end circles for a threaded feature of a 3D modeled object, Georgiev et al. does not explicitly disclose “trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object; and identifying a boundary of the trimmed helical curve”
Mathurin et al. discloses “trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, left col., 1st full paragraph, “To counter the influence of the boundary conditions defined above, two portions of 11.25 deg were subtracted
from the surrounding of the boundary conditions area. Thus, the angular sector of 45 deg was cut into a 22.5 deg sector during the postprocessing phase.”)];
“and identifying a boundary of the trimmed helical curve” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, left col., 1st full paragraph, “To counter the influence of the boundary conditions defined above, two portions of 11.25 deg were subtracted from the surrounding of the boundary conditions area. Thus, the angular sector of 45 deg was cut into a 22.5 deg sector during the postprocessing phase. Under these conditions, the effects of the boundary conditions were altered since results were investigated away from the boundary condition areas.”)];
Georgiev et al. and Mathurin et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the construction of a thread of a screw.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Georgiev et al. of constructing a helical curve and start and end circles for a threaded feature of a 3D modeled object by incorporating trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object; and identifying a boundary of the trimmed helical curve as taught by Mathurin et al. for the purpose forming a thread forming screw assembly.
Georgiev et al. in view of Mathurin et al. teaches trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object; and identifying a boundary of the trimmed helical curve.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Mathurin et al. teaches that by forming a thread forming screw assembly, the ability to analyze material flow throughout the thread forming process can be accomplished. This allows a way to see how the screw rotational speed ahs an influence on the maximum screw torque (Mathurin et al. Pg. 8, Conclusion and Perspectives, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “This paper presents a simulation study of the material flux, etc.”).
While the combination of Georgiev et al. and Mathurin et al. teaches constructing a helical curve and start and end circles for a threaded feature in a 3D modelled object as well as trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object, Georgiev et al. and Mathurin et al. do not explicitly disclose “and displaying a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.”
Banta et al. discloses “and displaying a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.” as [Banta et al. (paragraph [0023] “Additionally, the geometry of the first CAD component nay be displayed in the simulation environment to visually reflect the appearance of the first CAD component in the simulation environment. Furthermore a thread diameter, a thread pitch, a material type data, or combinations thereof may be properties that are derived and then used to calculate an axial preload for a threaded fastener during the simulation process.”, Banta et al. paragraph [0030] “Visually, in the simulation environment, the fastener geometry may be displayed, and therefore, the fastener will appear the same (or nearly so) as in the modeling environment. For example, a substituted object in the simulation environment may be a visually transparent rendering of the geometry of the corresponding object in the modeling environment. Alternatively, the visual representation of the substituted object may differ from that in the modeling environment where the geometry of the fastener is displayed.”)];
Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing a thread of a screw.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Georgiev et al. and Mathurin et al. constructing a helical curve and start and end circles for a threaded feature in a 3D modelled object as well as trimming the helical curve to conform to a geometry of the modelled object by incorporating and displaying a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve as taught by Banta et al. for the purpose of transferring data between a modeling environment and a simulation environment.
Georgiev et al. in view of Mathurin et al. in further view of Banta et al. teaches and displaying a cosmetic thread to visually represent the threaded feature based on the trimmed helical curve and the identified boundaries of the trimmed helical curve.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Banta et al. teaches that by analyzing a CAD model and searching for a first component that represent a fastener, where information is derived from the first component for use in a simulation process, the ability to transfer data between a modeling environment and a simulation environment can be accomplished more efficiently. This allows for a more efficient simulation process to be executed (Banta et al. paragraph [0015] – [0017]).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Mathurin et al. further discloses “intersecting a cylindrical envelope of the helical curve with a neighboring face of a surface of the threaded feature.” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, right col., 1st paragraph, “At step 1, the thread forming screw initially contacts the material and thus starts progressively forming the right flank of the thread, which reaches its final shape at step 8. At step 5, the screw would have achieved a complete first rotation, and the thread forming screw would have started forming the left flank simultaneously with the right flank. At step 12, the thread forming is completed.”, The examiner considers the contact between the thread forming screw and the material to be the intersecting of a cylindrical envelope of the helical curve with a neighboring face of a surface of the threaded feature, since the contact between the thread forming screw and the material starts the forming of the right flank.)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 2 above, and Mathurin et al. further discloses “designating an intersection between the cylindrical envelope and the neighboring face of the surface of the threaded feature as the boundary of the trimmed helical curve.” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, right col., 1st paragraph, “At step 1, the thread forming screw initially contacts the material and thus starts progressively forming the right flank of the thread, which reaches its final shape at step 8. At step 5, the screw would have achieved a complete first rotation, and the thread forming screw would have started forming the left flank simultaneously with the right flank. At step 12, the thread forming is completed.”, Fig. 5, With the thread forming screw contacting the material, where the right flank and left flank of the thread reaches its final shape, which results in the thread forming process being completed, demonstrates that a boundary is generated from this process.)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Georgiev et al. further discloses “establishing a thread definition for the threaded feature” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 1st – 3rd paragraph, “The macro program performs two major functions of the tool. The first has an interface window for data input and configuration of the tool`s options. The second major function of the macro program is automated work with the second element of the tool, etc.”, Fig. 2, The examiner considers setting up the data input and configuration of the tool’s option to be establishing a thread definition, since this process starts the generation of a thread)];
“and processing data from the thread definition to support creating the visual representation of the threaded feature.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 3rd – 5th paragraph, “The data input begins by selecting the type of thread which is
wanted to be generated, etc.”, Figs. 2-5)];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 4 above, and Georgiev et al. further discloses “receiving data from a computer-based user interface identifying a material type, a geometry type, a length option, and a direction type for the threaded feature” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 3rd – 5th paragraph, “The data input begins by selecting the type of thread which is wanted to be generated, etc.”, Figs. 2-5)];
“and receiving data from the computer-based user interface identifying a start edge on the modelled object for the threaded feature.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 5th paragraph “The advanced option tab includes options for: Thread direction; Number of revolutions of the thread; Number of starts (up to 4 starts), Starting angle of the thread and selection of the desired output body type. If surface body option is selected, input boxes for number of revolutions and start angle become inactive („Fig.5“). The workflow of the macro program is shown in “Fig.6””, Figs. 4-5)];
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 5 above, and Mathurin et al. further discloses “wherein the material type specifies whether the thread is to be formed by cutting material or adding material” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 3, right col., 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “The increase in temperature, in turn, lowers the flow stress in the material. This is known as thermal softening. The use of isothermal material data in the numerical simulations assumes that no heat is generated and may overpredict the flow stress by ignoring the thermal softening effect. So, a coefficient was calculated from the experimental results to correct the screwing torque value obtained from the numerical simulation and the isothermal material constitutive data.
In order to be closer to reality, as the thread forming process is very fast, FE models could be improved by using the new coefficients proposed by Vural et al. and by employing adiabatic material data.”)];
Georgiev et al. discloses “the geometry type specifies whether the thread is to be a cosmetic thread or a physical thread” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. B The predefined parametric file, 1st paragraph, “Parameterized file contains all the necessary features for generating the four type threads, with up to four starts and clockwise or counterclockwise directions.”, Georgiev et al. Pgs. 3-4, sec. B The predefined parametric file, 2nd paragraph, “Generating of the model begins with the generation of helix for the first start of the thread. This feature uses equations for the Pitch, Start angle of the thread and number of revolutions. Next step in model generation is selecting of the needed Basic profile. The file contains predefined parametric sketch of the Basic thread profile for each type of threads (metric thread, trapezoidal thread, buttress thread and acme thread).”)];
“the length option specifies whether the length of the thread is to be blind or limited by a certain geometry” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 2 Thread Terminology, 1st paragraph, “The important terminology, related to this work is presented as follows: Helix - curve on the surface of a cylinder for which the ratio of the travel in the axial direction to the rotary angle around the axis is constant; Lead angle of helix (φ) – acute angle between the tangent of a helix and the plane perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder; Pitch cylinder –imaginary cylinder whose surface cuts a parallel screw thread where the widths of the ridge and the groove of the thread are equal; Pitch line - generator of the pitch cylinder; Nominal diameter (d) – basic major diameter of external thread; Pitch diameter (d2) – diameter of the pitch cylinder; Height of fundamental triangle (H) - the height of the thread when the profile is extended to a sharp “V” form.”, Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 3rd paragraph, “The data input begins by selecting the type of thread which is wanted to be generated („Fig.3“). After that, for working with base level options it is necessary to enter the Pitch (P) and the Nominal diameter (d).”, Figs. 3-5, As shown in Figs. 3-5 of the Georgiev et al. reference the tread has a hole that doesn’t break through the other side of the thread. On Pg. 10 lines 15-17 of the specification it states that “A "blind" thread is a thread in hole that that is reamed, drilled, or milled to a specified depth without breaking through to the other side of an object or workpiece. In contrast, a through hole is a hole that is made to go completely through the material of an object.”)];
“and the direction type specifies whether the thread is to left-handed or right-handed.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. B The predefined parametric file, 1st paragraph, “Parameterized file contains all the necessary features for generating the four type threads, with up to four starts and clockwise or counterclockwise directions.”, Figs. 4 and 5)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 6 above, and Georgiev et al. further discloses “calculating a length of the thread if the thread definition indicates that the length of the thread is limited by certain geometry.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 4, left col., 3rd paragraph, “The feature group for solid body generation contains the helixes for the second, third and fourth start of multi-start
thread along with thread profile sketches for the respective start of the thread. These features use only logical relations with the sketch of the Real profile and the helix of the first start. After that, a cylindrical body with the thread major diameter and a height, corresponding to the number of
revolutions, is created.”, The examiner notes that the length of the thread is based on the other features the thread, such as diameter and pitch. This can be seen in Figs. 2-5 of the Georgiev et al. reference.)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 6 above, and Georgiev et al. further discloses “enlarging a geometry of the modelled object by thickening to produce an enlarged geometry of the modelled object if the thread definition indicates that the thread is to be formed by adding material.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 3rd paragraph, “The data input begins by selecting the type of thread which is wanted to be generated, („Fig.3“). After that, for working with base level options it is necessary to enter the Pitch (P) and the Nominal diameter (d).”, Figs. 2-5, The diameter of the thread can be changed where the thread can be enlarged. This can be seen in Figs. 2-5 of the Georgiev et al. where the input for the diameter can be changed)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 8 above, and Mathurin et al. further discloses “trimming the helical curve to conform to the enlarged geometry of the modelled object if the thread definition indicates that the thread is to be formed by adding material.” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, left col., 1st full paragraph, “To counter the influence of the boundary conditions defined above, two portions of 11.25 deg were subtracted from the surrounding of the boundary conditions area. Thus, the angular sector of 45 deg was cut into a 22.5 deg sector during the postprocessing phase.”)];
With respect to claim 11, Georgiev et al. discloses “A computer-based system for creating a visual representation of a threaded feature on a three-dimensional (3D) modelled object in a computer-aided design environment” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 2nd paragraph, “This paper presents, an integrated software tool for automated generation of thread and screw 3D model in the SolidWorks CAD system accordingly to the standards. The tool generates surfaces and solids bodies. Using the surface bodies generated by the software tool, the profiles of the thread turning tools used to machining the real threaded workpiece are automatically created.”)];
Mathurin et al. discloses “a computer processor” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, sec. 3 Modeling of the Assembly Procedure, 1st paragraph, “ABAQUS simulations were carried out using a PC biprocessor AMD opteron 252–2.6 GHz equipped with 4 GB DDR 400 MHz ram.”)];
“and computer-based memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, wherein the computer-based memory stores computer-readable instructions” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, sec. 3 Modeling of the Assembly Procedure, 1st paragraph, “ABAQUS simulations were carried out using a PC biprocessor AMD opteron 252–2.6 GHz equipped with 4 GB DDR 400 MHz ram.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 12, Mathurin et al. discloses “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a computer-based processor” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, sec. 3 Modeling of the Assembly Procedure, 1st paragraph, “ABAQUS simulations were carried out using a PC biprocessor AMD opteron 252–2.6 GHz equipped with 4 GB DDR 400 MHz ram.”, By having a processor, demonstrates that there’s a medium, since a medium is embedded within a processor)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 13, Georgiev et al. discloses “A computer-based method of creating a visual representation of a threaded feature on a three-dimensional (3D) modelled object in a computer-aided design environment” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 2nd paragraph, “This paper presents, an integrated software tool for automated generation of thread and screw 3D model in the SolidWorks CAD system accordingly to the standards. The tool generates surfaces and solids bodies. Using the surface bodies generated by the software tool, the profiles of the thread turning tools used to machining the real threaded workpiece are automatically created.”)];
“and constructing thread geometry based on the thread definition and the processing of data from the thread definition” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 1st – 5th paragraph, “The macro program performs two major functions of the tool. The first has an interface window for data input and configuration of the tool`s options. The second major function of the macro program is automated work with the second element of the tool, etc.”, Figs. 2-5)];
“wherein constructing the thread geometry comprises: determining, with a computer processor, whether the thread definition identifies the visual representation as a cosmetic thread or a physical thread” as [Georgiev et al. (Pgs. 3-4, right col., sec. B The predefined parametric file, 2nd – 3rd paragraph, “Generating of the model begins with the generation of helix for the first start of the thread. This feature uses equations for the Pitch, Start angle of the thread and number of revolutions. Next step in model generation is selecting of the needed Basic profile. The file contains predefined, etc.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claims 1 and 4 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 13 above, and Georgiev et al. further discloses “constructing a thread profile” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 2nd paragraph, “This paper presents, an integrated software tool for automated generation of thread and screw 3D model in the SolidWorks CAD system accordingly to the standards. The tool generates surfaces and solids bodies. Using the surface bodies generated by the software tool, the profiles of the thread turning tools used to machining the real threaded workpiece are automatically created.”, Fig. 2)];
“constructing a sweeping spine containing a helical curve and start and end curves” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 2 Thread Terminology, 1st paragraph, “The important terminology, related to this work is presented as follows: Helix - curve on the surface of a cylinder for which the ratio of the travel in the axial direction to the rotary angle around the axis is constant; Lead angle of helix (φ) – acute angle between the tangent of a helix and the plane perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder; Pitch cylinder – imaginary cylinder whose surface cuts a parallel screw thread where the widths of the ridge and the groove of the thread are equal”, Georgiev et al. (Pg. 4, left col., 3rd paragraph, “The feature group for solid body generation contains the helixes for the second, third and fourth start of multi-start thread along with thread profile sketches for the respective start of the thread. These features use only logical relations with the sketch of the Real profile and the helix of the first start. After that, a cylindrical body with the thread major diameter and a height, corresponding to the number of revolutions, is created.”, The examiner considers the start of the revolutions as being the start and end circles for a threaded feature, since the thread diameter and height are based on the number of revolutions that are created)];
“sweeping the thread profile along the spine to create a thread tool body” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 3rd – 5th paragraph, “The data input begins by selecting the type of thread which is wanted to be generated („Fig.3“). After that, for working with base level options it is necessary to enter the Pitch (P) and the Nominal diameter (d). This data is enough for working at base option level. By pressing the “Generate SolidWorks part document” button, the tool generates a 180 degree of surface body of the thread profile in a clockwise direction, which contains the profile of the thread turning tool.”, Figs. 2-5)];
“and modifying a geometry of a portion of the modelled object based on the thread tool body” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 1st paragraph, “The macro program performs two major functions of the tool. The first has an interface window for data input and configuration of the tool`s options.”, Georgiev et al. (Pg. 4, sec. 4 Implementation to the Learning Process, 4th paragraph, “During the exercise, students often held discussions, found
different solutions, and the most important - students found the relationships between changing of the input parameters and the obtained results.”, Fig. 2)];
“and merging the modified geometry with a previous geometry of the modelled object via a union operation.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 1st paragraph, “The macro program performs two major functions of the tool. The first has an interface window for data input and configuration of the tool`s options.”, Georgiev et al. (Pg. 4, sec. 4 Implementation to the Learning Process, 4th paragraph, “During the exercise, students often held discussions, found different solutions, and the most important - students found the relationships between changing of the input parameters and the obtained results.”, Fig. 2)];
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 13 above, and Banta et al. further discloses “storing a common data holding definition that is applicable whether the visual representation is a cosmetic thread or a physical thread.” as [Banta et al. (paragraph [0052] “Computer-aided modeling software (e.g., processes 400) may be stored on the storage device 510 and loaded into and executed by the CPU 502. The modeling software allows a design engineer to create and modify a 3D model and implements aspects of the invention described herein. The CPU 502 uses the computer monitor 504 to display a 3D model and other aspects thereof as described.”)];
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 16 above, and Banta et al. further discloses “wherein the common data holding definition stores data from the thread definition for the threaded feature, and results from the processing of the data from the thread definition for the threaded feature.” as [Banta et al. (paragraph [0031] “Other properties that an embodiment derives from a fastener are the diameter of the head of the fastener, the diameter of a nut if the fastener is a bolt, the diameter of any washers that contact the fastened geometry, and the thread diameter and the thread pitch of a threaded fastener. The thread diameter and the thread pitch of a threaded fastener along with the material properties of the fastener are used to calculate the axial preload.”, Banta et al. paragraph [0052] “Computer-aided modeling software (e.g., processes 400) may be stored on the storage device 510 and loaded into and executed by the CPU 502. The modeling software allows a design engineer to create and modify a 3D model and implements aspects of the invention described herein. The CPU 502 uses the computer monitor 504 to display a 3D model and other aspects thereof as described.”)];
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 17 above, and Banta et al. further discloses “presenting, on the computer display, with an image of the modelled object having the cosmetic thread or with an image of the modelled object having the physical thread, an interactive element, that, when interacted with, causes the computer to switch images.” as [Banta et al. (paragraph [0035] “Additionally, an embodiment of the present invention may indicate which parts were identified as fastener parts (e.g., via highlighting or presenting a list to the design engineer of the fastener parts), and allow the design engineer to indicate otherwise by interactively selecting parts to add or remove from the set of fasteners identified automatically.”)];
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 13 above, and Georgiev et al. further discloses “providing a single interface from which the user can choose to display a cosmetic thread or a physical thread resulting in a single feature in the model's history rather than two discreet features that need to be manually suppressed or unsuppressed.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 3rd – 5th paragraph, “The data input begins by selecting the type of thread which is wanted to be generated, etc.”, Figs. 2-5)];
With respect to claim 20, Georgiev et al. discloses “A computer-based system for creating a visual representation of a threaded feature on a three-dimensional (3D) modelled object in a computer-aided design environment” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2, left col., 2nd paragraph, “This paper presents, an integrated software tool for automated generation of thread and screw 3D model in the SolidWorks CAD system accordingly to the standards. The tool generates surfaces and solids bodies. Using the surface bodies generated by the software tool, the profiles of the thread turning tools used to machining the real threaded workpiece are automatically created.”)];
Mathurin et al. discloses “a computer processor” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, sec. 3 Modeling of the Assembly Procedure, 1st paragraph, “ABAQUS simulations were carried out using a PC biprocessor AMD opteron 252–2.6 GHz equipped with 4 GB DDR 400 MHz ram.”)];
“and computer-based memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, wherein the computer-based memory stores computer-readable instructions” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, sec. 3 Modeling of the Assembly Procedure, 1st paragraph, “ABAQUS simulations were carried out using a PC biprocessor AMD opteron 252–2.6 GHz equipped with 4 GB DDR 400 MHz ram.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 21, Mathurin et al. discloses “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a computer-based processor” as [Mathurin et al. (Pg. 4, sec. 3 Modeling of the Assembly Procedure, 1st paragraph, “ABAQUS simulations were carried out using a PC biprocessor AMD opteron 252–2.6 GHz equipped with 4 GB DDR 400 MHz ram.”, By having a processor, demonstrates that there’s a medium, since a medium is embedded within a processor)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claims 1 and 4 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Georgiev et al. in view of Mathurin et al. in further view of Banta et al. in further view of Bechtel, JR. et al. (U.S. PGPub 2003/0210970).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Banta et al. further discloses “retrieving values of thread pitch and thread major diameter from data stored in computer- based memory” as [Banta et al. (paragraph [0039] “The diameter may be determined by analyzing the fastener's part file or data structure stored in memory to locate dimension data or by calculating the number of geometric units across the fastener. For example, the diameter of the contacting fastener may be specified as a parameter within a part file with a specific parameter name that indicates the value is the diameter.”)];
Georgiev et al. discloses “and calculating thread height based on the thread pitch and thread major diameter.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 2. sec. 2 Thread Terminology, 1st paragraph, “The important terminology, related to this work is presented as follows: Helix - curve on the surface of a cylinder for which the ratio of the travel in the axial direction to the rotary angle around the axis is constant; Lead angle of helix (φ) – acute angle between the tangent of a helix and the plane perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder; Pitch cylinder – imaginary cylinder whose surface cuts a parallel screw thread where the widths of the ridge and the groove of the thread are equal”)];
While the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. teaches a major diameter for the thread, Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. do not explicitly disclose “and calculating minor diameter based on the thread pitch and thread major diameter”
Bechtel, JR. et al. discloses “and calculating minor diameter based on the thread pitch and thread major diameter” as [Bechtel, JR. et al. (paragraph [0044] “The minimum minor diameter is calculated as the maximum minor diameter minus the industry accepted standard tolerance for a screw of that size (still another known industry standard value for each screw size).”)];
Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al., Banta et al. and Bechtel, JR. et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing a thread of a screw.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. having a major diameter for the thread by incorporating and calculating minor diameter based on the thread pitch and thread major diameter as taught by Bechtel, JR. et al. for the purpose of providing a thread-forming tapping screw useful in both thick and thin materials.
Georgiev et al. in view of Mathurin et al. in further view of Banta et al. in further view of Bechtel, JR. et al. teaches and calculating minor diameter based on the thread pitch and thread major diameter.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Bechtel, JR. et al. teaches that by providing a thread-forming tapping screw useful in both thick and thin materials, the ability to provide sufficient holding force with a lower driving force in relatively thin, sheet-like materials can be accomplished. This allows for a screw that doesn’t damage materials and things that it comes in contact with (Bechtel, JR. et al. paragraph [0004] – [0005], paragraph [0009]).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. discloses the method of claim 13 above, and Georgiev et al. further discloses “determining a diameter of the threaded feature, a thread starting location, and thread direction” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 3rd – 5th paragraph, “The data input begins by selecting the type of thread which is wanted to be generated, etc.”, Figs. 2-5)];
“identifying an applicable standard or receiving user input to define one or more thread parameters including thread pitch and thread major diameter” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 3, sec. A The software application, 3rd paragraph, “The data input begins by selecting the type of thread which is wanted to be generated („Fig.3“). After that, for working with base level options it is necessary to enter the Pitch (P) and the Nominal diameter (d). This data is enough for working at base option level. By pressing the “Generate SolidWorks part document” button, the tool generates a 180 degree of surface body of the thread profile in a clockwise direction, which contains the profile of the thread turning tool.”, Figs. 2-5)];
“and calculating a thread length if the thread definition indicates that the thread length is limited by certain geometry.” as [Georgiev et al. (Pg. 4, left col., 3rd paragraph, “The feature group for solid body generation contains the helixes for the second, third and fourth start of multi-start
thread along with thread profile sketches for the respective start of the thread. These features use only logical relations with the sketch of the Real profile and the helix of the first start. After that, a cylindrical body with the thread major diameter and a height, corresponding to the number of
revolutions, is created.”, The examiner notes that the length of the thread is based on the other features the thread, such as diameter and pitch. This can be seen in Figs. 2-5 of the Georgiev et al. reference.)];
While the combination of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. teaches a major diameter for the thread, Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. do not explicitly disclose “calculating a thread height and thread minor diameter based on the one or more thread parameters”
Bechtel, JR. et al. discloses “calculating a thread height and thread minor diameter based on the one or more thread parameters” as [Bechtel, JR. et al. (paragraph [0044] “The minimum minor diameter is calculated as the maximum minor diameter minus the industry accepted standard tolerance for a screw of that size (still another known industry standard value for each screw size).”)];
Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al., Banta et al. and Bechtel, JR. et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing a thread of a screw.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Georgiev et al., Mathurin et al. and Banta et al. having a major diameter for the thread by incorporating calculating a thread height and thread minor diameter based on the one or more thread parameters as taught by Bechtel, JR. et al. for the purpose of providing a thread-forming tapping screw useful in both thick and thin materials.
Georgiev et al. in view of Mathurin et al. in further view of Banta et al. in further view of Bechtel, JR. et al. teaches calculating a thread height and thread minor diameter based on the one or more thread parameters.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Bechtel, JR. et al. teaches that by providing a thread-forming tapping screw useful in both thick and thin materials, the ability to provide sufficient holding force with a lower driving force in relatively thin, sheet-like materials can be accomplished. This allows for a screw that doesn’t damage materials and things that it comes in contact with (Bechtel, JR. et al. paragraph [0004] – [0005], paragraph [0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Connor et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0229508).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188