DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 7, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the E xaminer. 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. Clai m (s) 1-19 is/are rejecte d under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more. The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). Step 1, Statutory Category: Yes: Claim s 1-10 are directed to a machine . Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception: The E xaminer submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given the ir broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded. Claim 1 recites the limitations: 1. A method for generating a virtual model of a component using a computer-aided design (CAD) environment comprising a design database, the method comprising: storing, using the design database, designs; providing, by the CAD environment, predefined design elements from a design element collection, wherein at least some of the designs comprise predefined design elements, and wherein a design databank contains information from the design database relating to the designs; and in a design phase: selecting at least one design element of the predefined design elements, determining designs that contain the at least one selected design element from the design databank; and displaying information relating to at least one of the determined designs. The limitations selecting at least one design element and determining designs that contain the at least one selected design element are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. A user can perform the mental observations/ evaluations of selecting a design element and determining which designs contain the selected design element. Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application: Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general field s of use , mere instructions to apply an exception, and/ or insignificant extra-solution activity: A method for generating a virtual model of a component using a computer-aided design (CAD) environment comprising a design database (general field of use and/or technological environment , see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). storing, using the design database, designs (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering , see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). providing, by the CAD environment, predefined design elements from a design element collection (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering , see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). wherein at least some of the designs comprise predefined design elements, and wherein a design databank contains information from the design database relating to the designs (general field of use and/or technological environment , see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). displaying information relating to at least one of the determined designs (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering , see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS: Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: “Computer-aided design (CAD) environment” and “design database” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. Step 2B, Significantly More: When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element s “computer-aided design (CAD) environment” and “design database” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the a bstract idea. The examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply a n exception, insignificant extra-solution activity , or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05( f ) , MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05( h ). The insignificant extra solution activities of storing […] designs, providing […] predefined design elements, and displaying information are considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics .” Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites The method of claim 1, wherein in a data collection phase, the method further comprises: selecting a design from the design database; t his limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) . A user can perform the mental evaluation of selecting a design. extracting data from the selected design; t his limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05( g ) . The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.” converting the extracted data into a graph database format; t his limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of converting data into another format. A user may use pen and paper to perform the conversion. and storing the converted data in the design databank ; t his limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05( g ) . The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.” the design databank being in the form of a graph database ; t his limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h) . These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II ), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, C laim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 . Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites The method of claim 2, wherein extracting data from the selected design comprises: creating an image file of the design selected from the design database; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPE P § 2106.05( g ) . The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics .” and determining the design elements contained in selected design and an arrangement of the determined design elements in an image in the image file ; t his limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of determining elements contained in the design. A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining an arrangement of elements. A user may use pen and paper to draw the arrangement of elements. These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II ), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, C laim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 . Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites The method of claim 3, wherein extracting data from the selected design comprises serializing the image file into a string image file ; t his limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of associating a serial number with an image file. A user may use pen and paper to record the serial number. These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II ), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, C la im 4 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The method of claim 1, wherein displaying information relating to at least one of the determined designs comprises: determining information relating to design elements that are arranged adjacent to the at least one selected design element in the determined designs that contain the at least one selected design element from the design databank; t his limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of determining information. and displaying the determined information relating to at least one design element ; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPE P § 2106.05( g ) . The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics .” These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical appli cation (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The method of claim 5, further comprising determining and displaying, for the information relating to use of a design element as a design element adjacent to the at least one selected design element, statistics or a frequency in the determined designs or in a subgroup of the determined designs ; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPE P § 2106.05( g ) . The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics .” These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The method of claim 5, further comprising determining and displaying, for the information relating to use of a design element as a design element adjacent to the at least one selected design ele ment, a recommended use as a design element adjacent to the selected design element ; t his limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a recommended use . T his limitation is further considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPE P § 2106.05( g ) . The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics .” These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical appli cation (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites The method of claim 6, wherein at least one predetermined group criterion defines a subgroup of the determined designs; this limitation is considered to mere ly link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h) . These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, C l aim 8 is ine ligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites The method of claim 5, further comprising providing a user with an option of adopting at least one adjacent design element, or at least one adjacent design element and further design elements adjacent to the at least one adjacent design element from the determined designs of adjacent design elements for arrangement in the design in the design phase ; t his limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPE P § 2106.05( g ) . The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics .” These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, C laim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual model is a simulation model for simulating use of the component by at least one computer ; this limitation is considered to mere ly link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h) . These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, C l aim 10 is ine ligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “computer system” and “computer” reciting generic computer components represent mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) . Thus, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under step 2A prong II or provide significantly more under step 2B. Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ” and “ instructions executable by a computer ” reciting generic computer components represent mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) . Thus, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under step 2A prong II or provide significantly more under step 2B. Regarding Claims 13-19, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 2-8, respectively, and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0080121 A1), hereinafter Gibson. Regarding Claim 1, Gibson teaches A method for generating a virtual model of a component using a computer-aided design (CAD) environment comprising a design database (“ embodiments of the invention feature a computer-implemented method of automatically adding constraints between entities in a subject (i.e., current work in progress) CAD model. The method involves storing in a computer database information regarding CAD model entities and related, where the CAD model entities belong to the subject CAD model and/or other CAD models. ”) (e.g., paragraph [0008]). the method comprising: storing, using the design database, designs (“ Information regarding CAD model entities and related constraints are stored in a computer database (step 605). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]). providing, by the CAD environment, predefined design elements from a design element collection (“ The database is then accessed to determine previously used constraints for at least one entity of a given component to be added to a CAD model being designed or updated (step 610). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]). wherein at least some of the designs comprise predefined design elements (“ A database is queried to determine if the added component has been used in another model (step 710), and if so, determines whether one or more components in the subject model has been mated with the added component in another model (step 715). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0038]). and wherein a design databank contains information from the design database relating to the designs (“ Information regarding CAD model entities and related constraints are stored in a computer database (step 605). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]). and in a design phase: selecting at least one design element of the predefined design elements (“ Referring now to FIG. 7, an example process 700 begins by adding a component to a subject model (step 705). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0038]). determining designs that contain the at least one selected design element from the design databank (“ A database is queried to determine if the added component has been used in another model (step 710), and if so, determines whether one or more components in the subject model has been mated with the added component in another model (step 715). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0038]). and displaying information relating to at least one of the determined designs (“ If a component in the subject model and the added component have been mated in another model, process 700 retrieves information about the component mated with the added component in other models as well as the component mated with the added component (step 720) […] In one embodiment, the modeling software is based on a solid modeling system that may be used to construct a 3D model consisting of one or more solid and surface bodies. ) (e.g., paragraphs [0038] and [0050]). Regarding Claim 5, Gibson teaches The method of claim 1. Gibson further teaches wherein displaying information relating to at least one of the determined designs comprises: determining information relating to design elements that are arranged adjacent to the at least one selected design element in the determined designs that contain the at least one selected design element from the design databank (“ A database is queried to determine if the added component has been used in another model (step 710), and if so, determines whether one or more components in the subject model has been mated with the added component in another model (step 715). If a component in the subject model and the added component have been mated in another model, process 700 retrieves information about the component mated with the added component in other models as well as the component mated with the added component (step 720). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0038]). and displaying the determined information relating to at least one design element (“ The CPU 1202 uses the computer monitor 1204 to display a 3D model and other aspects thereof as described. ”) (e.g., paragraph [0050]). Regarding Claim 11, Gibson teaches A computer system comprising: at least one computer (“ Embodiments of the invention may be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations thereof. Apparatuses may be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor .”) (e.g., paragraph [0051]). The remaining limitations of Claim 11 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 12, Gibson teaches In a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by a computer (“ Embodiments of the invention may be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations thereof. Apparatuses may be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor .”) (e.g., paragraph [0051]). The remaining limitations of Claim 12 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 5, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 2-4, 6-9, 13-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibso n in view of Larsen (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0364390 A1), hereinafter Larsen). Regarding Claim 2, Gibson teaches The method of claim 1. Gibson further teaches wherein in a data collection ph ase, the method further comprises: selecting a design from the design database (“ Referring now to FIG. 7, an example process 700 begins by adding a component to a subject model (step 705). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0038]). extracting data from the selected design (“ If a component in the subject model and the added component have been mated in another model, process 700 retrieves information about the component mated with the added component in other models as well as the component mated with the added component (step 720). ”) (e.g., paragraph [0038]). and storing the converted data in the design databank, the design databank being in the form of a graph database (“ Other advantages of the embodiments disclosed herein include leveraging a Product Data Management (PDM) system's database to effectively store and index the previous-use data ,” wherein the PDM database may be in the form of a graph database, and the previous-use data may be converted data.) (e.g., paragraph [0055]). However, Gibson does not appear to specifically teach converting the extracted data into a graph database format. On the other hand, Larsen, which relates similarly to determining how CAD models are arranged, does teach converting the extracted data into a graph database format (“ The context describes what kind of product or technical field the digital assembly relates to, such as which physical product is designed [...] The context can be expressed via a description, a graph or a list of components used in a product/assembly to obtain a specific purpose .” The context is interpreted as comprising extracted data.) (e.g., paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Gibson with Larsen. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Gibson teaches a method for computer-aided design using a design database. However, Gibson does not appear to specifically teach converting extracted data into a graph format, a frequency of adjacent components, recommending an adjacent design element, or a criterion defining a subgroup of designs. On the other hand, Larsen, which relates similarly as a method for determining how CAD models are arranged, does teach a graph format, a frequency of adjacency, recommending adjacent elements, and a criterion defining a subgroup of designs. As both Gibson and Chernyak relate to CAD software, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the CAD method of Gibson with the graph format and design element recommendation of Larsen. In combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Gibson with Larsen in order provide the automated component selection of Larsen in addition to the automated constraint se lection of Gibson. Regarding Claim 3, Gibson in view of Larsen teaches The method of claim 2, Gibson further teaches wherein extracting data from the selected design comprises: creating an image file of the design selected from the design database (“ The CPU 1202 uses the computer monitor 1204 to display a 3D model and other aspects thereof as described. ” Displaying a 3D model is interpreted as creating an image file.) (e.g., paragraph [0050]). and determining the design elements contained in selected design and an arrangement of the determined design elements in an image in the image file (“ In one embodiment, the modeling software is based on a solid modeling system that may be used to construct a 3D model consisting of one or more solid and surface bodies ,” wherein the solid and surface bodies may be the determined design elements.) (e.g., paragraph [0050]). Regarding Claim 4, Gibson in view of Larsen teaches The method of claim 3, Gibson further teaches wherein extracting data from the selected design comprises serializing the image file into a string image file (“FIGS. 1-5 illustrate components of a computer-generated model 100, and annotations imparting knowledge that a design engineer may consider when designing such a model 100, including how components of the model 100 may be constrained. ” The annotations are interpreted as a string image file, wherein describing an image via annotations and constraints is interpreted as serializing.) (e.g., paragraph [0026]). Regarding Claim 6, Gibson teaches The method of claim 5. However, Gibson does not appear to specifically teach the method further comprising determining and displaying, for the information relating to use of a design element as a design element adjacent to the at least one selected design element, statistics or a frequency in the determined designs or in a subgroup of the determined designs. On the other han d, Larsen, which relates similarly to determining how CAD models are arranged, does teach determining and displaying, for the information relating to use of a design element as a design element adjacent to the at least one selected design element, statistics or a frequency in the determined designs or in a subgroup of the determined designs (“ In some embodiments, deriving relationships between components comprises calculating frequencies expressing how often various digital models are connected in the obtained plurality of digital assemblies. ” These calculated frequencies may be displayed using the computer monitor of Gibson.) (e.g., paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Gibson with Larson for the same reasons as in Claim 2, above. Regarding Claim 7, Gibson teaches The method of claim 5. However, Gibson does not appear to specifically teach the method further comprising determining and displaying, for the information relating to use of a design element as a design element adjacent to the at least one selected design element, a recommended use as a design element adjacent to the selected design element. On the other hand, Larsen, w hich relates similarly to determining how CAD models are arranged, does teach determining and displaying, for the information relating to use of a design element as a design element adjacent to the at least one selected design element, a recommended use as a design element adjacent to the selected design element (“ The computer program product further has instructions for identifying a set 340 of candidate components for the next component based on a data storage storing relationships between various components .” Figure 3A discloses recommended elements 340, and figure 3B discloses a recommended placement of element 342, interpreted as a recommended use.) (e.g., figures 3A and 3B; paragraph [0200]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Gibson with Larson for the same reasons as in Claim 2, above. Regarding Claim 8, Gibson in view of Larsen teaches The method of claim 6 . Larsen further teaches wherein at least one predetermined group criterion defines a subgroup of the determined designs (“ In FIG. 3A the generated set contains three candidate components: a rectangle, a rectangle with a snip comer and one through hole, and a rectangle with two through holes. ” The three components are interpreted as a subgroup, wherein a selection of the number of recommended items (i.e., three in the present example), is interpreted as a predetermined group criterion.) (e.g., paragraph [0200]). Regarding Claim 9, Gibson teaches The method of claim 5. However, Gibson does not appear to specifically teach the method further comprising providing a user with an option of adopting at least one adjacent design element, or at least one adjacent design element and further design elements adjacent to the at least one adja cent design element from the determined designs of adjacent design elements for arrangement in the design in the design phase. On the other hand, Larsen, w hich relates similarly to determining how CAD models are arranged, does teach providing a user with an option of adopting at least one adjacent design element, or at least one adjacent design element and further design elements adjacent to the at least one adjacent design element from the determined designs of adjacent design elements for arrangement in the design in the design phase (“ The computer program product further has instructions for identifying a set 340 of candidate components for the next component based on a data storage storing relationships between various components .” Figure 3A discloses recommended elements 340, and figure 3B discloses a recommended placement of element 342.) (e.g., figures 3A and 3B; paragraph [0200]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Gibson with Larson for the same reasons as in Claim 2, above. Regarding Claims 13-15 and 17-19, the Claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 2-4 and 6-8, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons. Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson in view of Chernyak et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0080502 A1), hereinafter Chernyak . Regarding Claim 10, Gibson teaches The method of claim 1 . However, Gibson does not appear to specifically teach wherein the virtual model is a simulation model for simulating use of the component by at least one computer. On the other hand, Chernyak , which relates similarly to computer aided design, does teach wherein the virtual model is a simulation model for simulating use of the component by at least one computer (“ A second further embodiment might add the capability for simulation testing (physical and logical) of each completed assembly and project for pre-production testing and verification, allowing even more rapid, and dependable, prototyping to be pursued. ”) (e.g., paragraph [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Gibson with Chernyak . The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Gibson teaches a method for computer-aided design using a design database. However, Gibson does not appear to specifically teach wherein the virtual model is used for simulation. On the other hand, Chernyak , which relates similarly as a method for computer-aided design, does teach wherein a completed assembly may be simulated. As both Gibson and Chernyak relate to CAD software, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the CAD method of Gibson with the simulation of Chernyak . In combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Gibson with Chernyak in order actually simulate the CAD models of Gibson. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huet et al. ( Huet , Armand, Romain Pinquié , Philippe Véron , Antoine Mallet, and Frédéric Segonds . "CACDA: A knowledge graph for a context-aware cognitive design assistant." Computers in Industry 125 (2021): 103377. ) teaches a computer-aided design assistant using a knowledge graph to manage design rules. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3731 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9A-5P PST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Rehana Perveen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189 /REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189