DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Application No. 202211062400 filed in INDIA on 01 November 2022. A certified copy of the foreign priority application, as required by 37 CFR 1.55, has been received (electronically retrieved on 18 April 2023).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 16, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, Foreign Patent Cite Nos. 2 and 3 (KR 10112078 and CN 101410824) are not in the English language and do not include a concise explanation of relevance. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein have not been considered. To remedy this defect, Applicant may consider submitting either a concise explanation of relevance or a full English language translation.
Accordingly, the IDS has been partially considered by the examiner but the IDS has not been fully considered in view of the above defect.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “… the computer-executable instructions configured for: receiving…”, which appears to be an artifact of Applicant’s editing process. The operation steps are not clearly positively recited. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner recommends replacing “configured for: receiving” with “configured to: receive” (and similarly removing the “ing” ending on “defining” and “generating”).
Claims 18-20 have similar issues and are objected to for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 Step 1, Statutory Category?:
Yes: Claims 1-8 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claims 9-16 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claims 17-20 are directed to the statutory category of a manufacture. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
A method for interactively creating, executing, and managing Design for Excellence (DFX) rules for 3-Dimensional (3D) Computer Aided Design (CAD) models, the method comprising:
receiving, by a DFX rule builder, rule definition data corresponding to a DFX rule for a process associated with the 3D CAD model from a subject matter expert through a Graphical User Interface (GUI), wherein the rule definition data comprise basic details, definition criteria, and default configuration, and wherein each of the basic details, the definition criteria, and the default configuration comprise a plurality of data elements;
defining, by the DFX rule builder, parameter expressions with a set of supported parameters for the process using a set of parameter data components of the process; and
generating, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder.
The limitations “defining, by the DFX rule builder, parameter expressions with a set of supported parameters for the process using a set of parameter data components of the process” and “generating, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could define parameter expressions and create/generate a file that includes the parameter expressions. See Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0034], indicating “parameter may be defined with a name, a symbol, an associated feature, a value type (i.e., numeric, logical, floating point, or string), and a supported operator (i.e., less than, greater than, equal to, range, not equal to, etc.) based on the value type of the parameter” (emphasis added).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “for interactively creating, executing, and managing Design for Excellence (DFX) rules for 3-Dimensional (3D) Computer Aided Design (CAD) models” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of an oil rig/wellsite (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “receiving, by a DFX rule builder, rule definition data corresponding to a DFX rule for a process associated with the 3D CAD model from a subject matter expert through a Graphical User Interface (GUI), wherein the rule definition data comprise basic details, definition criteria, and default configuration, and wherein each of the basic details, the definition criteria, and the default configuration comprise a plurality of data elements” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is “for interactively creating, executing, and managing Design for Excellence (DFX) rules for 3-Dimensional (3D) Computer Aided Design (CAD) models”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a DFX-3D CAD environment. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The second type of additional elements (“receiving … rule definition data”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-8 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 9 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
9. A system for interactively creating, executing, and managing DFX rules for 3D CAD models, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, by a DFX rule builder, rule definition data corresponding to a DFX rule for a process associated with the 3D CAD model from a subject matter expert through a GUI, wherein the rule definition data comprise basic details, definition criteria, and default configuration, and wherein each of the basic details, the definition criteria, and the default configuration comprise a plurality of data elements;
define, by the DFX rule builder, parameter expressions with a set of supported parameters for the process using a set of parameter data components of the process; and
generate, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder.
The limitations “define, by the DFX rule builder, parameter expressions with a set of supported parameters for the process using a set of parameter data components of the process” and “generate, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could define parameter expressions and create/generate a file that includes the parameter expressions. See Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0034], indicating “parameter may be defined with a name, a symbol, an associated feature, a value type (i.e., numeric, logical, floating point, or string), and a supported operator (i.e., less than, greater than, equal to, range, not equal to, etc.) based on the value type of the parameter” (emphasis added).
Claim 9 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “for interactively creating, executing, and managing DFX rules for 3D CAD models” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of an oil rig/wellsite (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “receive, by a DFX rule builder, rule definition data corresponding to a DFX rule for a process associated with the 3D CAD model from a subject matter expert through a GUI, wherein the rule definition data comprise basic details, definition criteria, and default configuration, and wherein each of the basic details, the definition criteria, and the default configuration comprise a plurality of data elements” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are three types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is “for interactively creating, executing, and managing DFX rules for 3D CAD models”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a DFX-3D CAD environment. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The second type of additional elements is the generic computer components (“processor” and “memory”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The third type of additional elements (“receive … rule definition data”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 9 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 9 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 10-16 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 17 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
17. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for interactively creating, executing, and managing DFX rules for 3D CAD models, the computer-executable instructions configured for:
receiving, by a DFX rule builder, rule definition data corresponding to a DFX rule for a process associated with the 3D CAD model from a subject matter expert through a GUI, wherein the rule definition data comprise basic details, definition criteria, and default configuration, and wherein each of the basic details, the definition criteria, and the default configuration comprise a plurality of data elements;
defining, by the DFX rule builder, parameter expressions with a set of supported parameters for the process using a set of parameter data components of the process; and
generating, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder.
The limitations “defining, by the DFX rule builder, parameter expressions with a set of supported parameters for the process using a set of parameter data components of the process” and “generating, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could define parameter expressions and create/generate a file that includes the parameter expressions. See Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0034], indicating “parameter may be defined with a name, a symbol, an associated feature, a value type (i.e., numeric, logical, floating point, or string), and a supported operator (i.e., less than, greater than, equal to, range, not equal to, etc.) based on the value type of the parameter” (emphasis added).
Claim 17 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “for interactively creating, executing, and managing DFX rules for 3D CAD models” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of an oil rig/wellsite (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “receiving, by a DFX rule builder, rule definition data corresponding to a DFX rule for a process associated with the 3D CAD model from a subject matter expert through a GUI, wherein the rule definition data comprise basic details, definition criteria, and default configuration, and wherein each of the basic details, the definition criteria, and the default configuration comprise a plurality of data elements” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 17 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are three types of additional elements. The first type of additional elements is the generic computer components (“non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The second type of additional element is “for interactively creating, executing, and managing DFX rules for 3D CAD models”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a DFX-3D CAD environment. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The third type of additional elements (“receiving … rule definition data”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 17 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 17 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 18-20 are further addressed below.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20
Regarding claims 2-8, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further comprising configuring, by a DFX rule configurator, the DFX rule using rule configuration data received from the subject matter expert, wherein the rule configuration data overwrites the default configuration of the DFX rule”, claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “storing, by the rule definition writer, the rule definition file for the DFX rule in a database”, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites: “retrieving, by a rule definition reader, each of the rule definition data of the DFX rule from the rule definition file or the database”, claim 5 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “parsing, by a DFX rule validator, each of the plurality of data elements defined in the rule definition data to obtain a list of features corresponding to the process and a set of associated parameters; extracting, by the DFX rule validator, each of the set of associated parameters corresponding to the list of features from the 3D CAD model using a DFX feature and parameter extractor module; and evaluating, by the DFX rule validator, each of the plurality of data elements based on the extracted set of associated parameters”, claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further recites: “comparing, by the DFX rule validator, each of the plurality of data elements with each value of the rule configuration data using configured operators to identify one or more failed instances of the DFX rule”, claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further recites: “displaying information associated with each of the one or more failed instances on the GUI” and claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “receiving, by the DFX rule builder, modified rule definition data corresponding to the DFX rule from the subject matter expert through the GUI, wherein the modified rule definition data comprises a modification to at least one of the plurality of data elements of the rule definition data; and modifying, by the DFX rule builder, the DFX rule based on the modified rule definition data”. These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims depend. The bolded portion of the additional feature are considered to further clarify the details of the human’s mental activity (e.g., with pen and paper). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The “storing” limitation of claim 3, the “retrieving” limitation of claim 4, the “parsing … to obtain” and “extracting” limitations of claim 5, the “displaying” limitation of claim 7 and the “receiving” limitation of claim 8 are considered to further clarify the details of the insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or data outputting). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claims 2-8 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 10 and 18 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 13 and 19 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 16 and 20 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 8; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SINHA et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0093106 A1) in view of AUERBACH et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0185992 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SINHA discloses a method for interactively creating, executing, and managing Design for Excellence (DFX) rules for 3-Dimensional (3D) Computer Aided Design (CAD) models (there is a need to capture the best practices prevalent in an organization as rules in software so that any design can be validated against them consistently, Para. [0007] of SINHA; See also three-dimensional CAD model, Para. [0012]; See also DFX Rule Manager module 104 is a small standalone application for customization of rule parameters, the output of which is a rule file 120 which serves as an input to the DFX UI module 102, Para. [0053] of SINHA), the method comprising: receiving, by a DFX rule builder (invention also provides a framework of extensible interfaces for users to write their analysis engines and rules, Para. [0013] of SINHA; See also DFX evaluation/rules, Paras. [0013] & [0014] of SINHA), rule definition data corresponding to a DFX rule (every rule consists of two components—a rule validator and a rule definition, Para. [0064] of SINHA; See also DFX Rule Manager module 104 is a small standalone application for customization of rule parameters, the output of which is a rule file 120 which serves as an input to the DFX UI module 102, Para. [0053] of SINHA) for a process associated with the 3D CAD model from a subject matter expert through a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (three-dimensional CAD model, Para. [0012]; See also FIG. 4 is a screen shot of an exemplary user interface of the DFX Rule Manager of FIG. 2, Para. [0020] of SINHA; See also FIG. 5 is a screen shot of an exemplary user interface for registering a rule module with the system, Para. [0021] of SINHA; See also FIG. 6 is a screen shot of a sample user interface for rule configuration … this particular scenario provides the user interface elements to configure the parameters of a mold wall thickness rule, Para. [0022] of SINHA), wherein the rule definition data comprise basic details, definition criteria, and default configuration, and wherein each of the basic details, the definition criteria, and the default configuration comprise a plurality of data elements (Rule information consists of descriptive information of the rule including a name description 601 and a summary description 602, Para. [0064] of SINHA; [the name and summary are interpreted as corresponding to basic details of the rule]; See also regarding definition criteria: Rule1 module 106, for example, may consist of one rule which utilizes data (number of holes in the CAD model) and parameters (hole depth and diameter) provided by Engine1 105 and predefined tabulated values (maximum hole depth to diameter ratio for a given material) from Database1 111 to determine whether there are instances in the CAD model which violate a design rule/guideline—Maximum depth to diameter ratio of a hole should be less than a predefined value, Para. [0054] of SINHA; Regarding default: see also the system provides a script based interface wherein the user can quickly write rules by interfacing with the default engines as well as newly written customized engines and/or CAD APIs in a seamless manner … the published interfaces for displaying the results of the DFX evaluation enable the user to display results of the customized/extended rules using customized or default engines in the same result interface in a seamless manner, Para. [0014] of SINHA; See also FIG. 5 shows “Default Available Modules”); defining, by the DFX rule builder, (rule parameters are also stored in a structure understood by the rule module which is responsible for extracting the information from the human readable format and storing the rule in memory for machine execution … rule category description 603 determines whether the rule is executed, or not, based on a selected manufacturing process, Para. [0064] of SINHA); and generating, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder (rule file comprises the set of rules along with the associated parameters relevant for this particular execution … in response to receiving an input from the user via an Edit button 702, DFX framework module 103 (FIG. 2) launches the DFX Rule Manager having an exemplary user interface screen 300, as shown in FIG. 4 for editing the rule file, Para. [0065] of SINHA).
Although SINHA discloses defining rules with supported parameters and generating rule definition files, SINHA does not appear to explicitly disclose all of defining, by the DFX rule builder, parameter expressions with a set of supported parameters for the process using a set of parameter data components of the process; and generating, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder.
AUERBACH, however, is in the field of computer-aided design verification (Para. [0002] of AUERBACH) and teaches defining parameter expressions with a set of supported parameters for the process using a set of parameter data components of the process (Configuration of the behavior of a design input is facilitated by use of the expression builder 44, which displays possibilities for constructing a hardware description language expression of the behavior, including a list of design inputs 46, a list of outputs 48, a series of internal parameters 50, and a set of operators 52 in the right upper portion of the screen display, Para. [0039] of AUERBACH); and generating, by a rule definition writer, a rule definition file for the DFX rule based on the rule definition data and the set of supported parameters obtained from the DFX rule builder (Selection of the possibilities by the operator generates an expression 54, as shown in the lower portion of the screen display, Para. [0039] of AUERBACH).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the DFX rule editor of SINHA with the rule expression editor of AUERBACH for the purpose of efficiency, i.e., making design less labor intensive (Para. [0007] of AUERBACH).
Regarding claim 2, SINHA as modified by AUERBACH teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising configuring, by a DFX rule configurator, the DFX rule using rule configuration data received from the subject matter expert, wherein the rule configuration data overwrites the default configuration of the DFX rule (exemplary user interface screen 300 allows users to register rules with the system, configure rule parameters and save selected rule sets in the rule file 120 (FIG. 2), Para. [0057] of SINHA).
Regarding claim 3, SINHA as modified by AUERBACH teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising storing, by the rule definition writer, the rule definition file for the DFX rule in a database (features and parameters are stored in a “features and parameters” database 905 … another program module 904 makes use of these feature parameters and the manufacturability rules stored in a rule database 906 to determine the ease of manufacturability of the input CAD model, Para. [0068] of SINHA; See also every rule consists of two components—a rule validator and a rule definition, Para. [0064] of SINHA; See also exemplary user interface screen 300 allows users to register rules with the system, configure rule parameters and save selected rule sets in the rule file 120 (FIG. 2), Para. [0057] of SINHA).
Regarding claim 4, SINHA as modified by AUERBACH teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising retrieving, by a rule definition reader, each of the rule definition data of the DFX rule from the rule definition file or the database (Loading or registering the rule module requires extraction of rules implemented by the rule module and parameters supported by each rule using the interfaces prescribed by the DFX framework module 103 (FIG. 2), Para. [0059] of SINHA).
Regarding claim 5, SINHA as modified by AUERBACH teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising parsing, by a DFX rule validator, each of the plurality of data elements defined in the rule definition data to obtain a list of features corresponding to the process and a set of associated parameters (first step executed by the DFX Framework module 103 (FIG. 2) is parsing the rule file and determining the rules relevant for the current execution. This includes checking if the category of the rule matches the selected part type (manufacturing process) … for each rule, the rule validator module is located using the rule module file name (for example, 604 and 605 in FIG. 7) and loaded in memory … the rule validator module determines the data it needs to validate the rules and thereby the analysis engines required to generate that data, which are also located and loaded in memory … subsequently, each rule is executed and checked for failure or pass criterion based on the preset rule parameters, Para. [0066] of SINHA; [Examiner notes that the “to obtain a list” language is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use]); extracting, by the DFX rule validator, each of the set of associated parameters corresponding to the list of features from the 3D CAD model using a DFX feature and parameter extractor module (Loading or registering the rule module requires extraction of rules implemented by the rule module and parameters supported by each rule using the interfaces prescribed by the DFX framework module 103 (FIG. 2), Para. [0059] of SINHA); and evaluating, by the DFX rule validator, each of the plurality of data elements based on the extracted set of associated parameters (See next sentence: If any rule module being registered does not implement the interfaces as prescribed, the load procedure will fail and an error message will be displayed, Para. [0059] of SINHA).
Regarding claim 6, SINHA as modified by AUERBACH teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising comparing, by the DFX rule validator, each of the plurality of data elements with each value of the rule configuration data using configured operators to identify one or more failed instances of the DFX rule (first step executed by the DFX Framework module 103 (FIG. 2) is parsing the rule file and determining the rules relevant for the current execution … this includes checking if the category of the rule matches the selected part type (manufacturing process) … for each rule, the rule validator module is located using the rule module file name (for example, 604 and 605 in FIG. 7) and loaded in memory … the rule validator module determines the data it needs to validate the rules and thereby the analysis engines required to generate that data, which are also located and loaded in memory … subsequently, each rule is executed and checked for failure or pass criterion based on the preset rule parameters, Para. [0066] of SINHA; [Examiner notes that the “to identify” language is not positively recited and is interpreted as intended use]).
Regarding claim 7, SINHA as modified by AUERBACH teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising displaying information associated with each of the one or more failed instances on the GUI (If any rule module being registered does not implement the interfaces as prescribed, the load procedure will fail and an error message will be displayed, Para. [0059] of SINHA).
Regarding claim 8, SINHA as modified by AUERBACH teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the DFX rule builder, modified rule definition data corresponding to the DFX rule from the subject matter expert through the GUI, wherein the modified rule definition data comprises a modification to at least one of the plurality of data elements of the rule definition data (FIG. 6 is a screen shot of a sample user interface for rule configuration … this particular scenario provides the user interface elements to configure the parameters of a mold wall thickness rule, Para. [0022] of SINHA; See also in response to receiving an input from the user via an Edit button 702, DFX framework module 103 (FIG. 2) launches the DFX Rule Manager having an exemplary user interface screen 300, as shown in FIG. 4 for editing the rule file, Para. [0065] of SINHA); and modifying, by the DFX rule builder, the DFX rule based on the modified rule definition data (FIG. 6 is a screen shot of a sample user interface for rule configuration … this particular scenario provides the user interface elements to configure the parameters of a mold wall thickness rule, Para. [0022] of SINHA).
Claims 10 and 18 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claims 13 and 19 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claims 16 and 20 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 8; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: BOWEN (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0012414 A1) discloses a method for interactively creating, executing, and managing Design for Excellence (DFX) rules for 3-Dimensional (3D) Computer Aided Design (CAD) models, the method comprising: receiving, by a DFX rule builder, rule definition data corresponding to a DFX rule (at block 605, customization rules and permissions are accessed from memory … for example, the customization rules and permissions may indicate what colors may be used for the item, for each design area, for each image in a design area, and/or for each item of text in a design area, Para. [0220] of BOWEN; See also AutoCAD DFX, Para. [0042] of BOWEN) for a process associated with the 3D CAD model from a subject matter expert through a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (See next Para. [0221] of BOWEN: at block 606, customization interface may be rendered … the customization interface may display an image corresponding to a default side of the user selected item, optionally in an item provider specified default color … a side selection control may be provided via which the user can view and select an image of a different side … the design areas specified by the item provider may be highlighted on the item image … the user may select (e.g., by clicking on) a design area to add to or modify the design area … an item color selection interface may be provided (e.g., including a palette of colors) via which the user can select an item color; See also user interfaces may be provided and/or generated by one or more of the systems described herein (e.g., a CAD system, an ordering/inventory system, client device, etc.), Para. [0054] of BOWEN; See also image may be a 3D model, Paras. [0057] & [0058] of BOWEN).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (571)272-3676. 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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights