DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 07/16/2026
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-20 are presented for examination
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments – Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 2-6, 8-9, and 12-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 2-6, 8-9, and 12-17 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see page, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC § 112 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-20 under 35 USC § 103 has been withdrawn.
Particularly, with the incorporation of the subject matter of previous claim 7, which was determined to be allowable under prior art in the previous action, into the independent claims, the newly made amendments successfully overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process but merely recite one.
Examiner responds by explaining that, while additional elements are present, the core concept of the claimed invention is a mental process. Particularly,
A computer-implemented method for designing a product to be manufactured, the method comprising: displaying, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts;
“Displaying” such a representation of a part and its subparts is merely the act of drawing such a representation, as with a pencil and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
Performing this displaying step using a GUI and a true 3D renderer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Should it be found that this is not a mental process, this is also an example of mere data gathering.
receiving, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, a user selection of a first subpart and a second subpart of the plurality of candidate subparts; obtaining the first subpart and the second subpart of the product, in response to the user selection, each subpart being represented by a semantic representation having one or more semantic nodes, each semantic representation having, for each semantic node of the semantic representation, a respective procedural graph and a respective semantic description of the semantic node, the respective semantic description including: at least one semantic publication, each semantic publication pointing to a given node of the procedural graph of the semantic node and comprising an identifier to be pointed to by a semantic reference of another semantic node, and/or at least one semantic reference, each semantic reference comprising a path to point to a semantic publication of another semantic node by referencing to the identifier of the semantic publication, each semantic reference being pointed to by a node of the procedural graph of the semantic node;
Obtaining these subparts and the representations of them in such a manner is a mental process equivalent to drawing diagrams representative of such a structure.
Firstly, obtaining the selections of the subparts is merely the collection of information representative of said selections; this kind of simple data collection from users has been recognized by the courts as an example of a mental process (See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence section (III)(A)(c) “Additional examples of mental processes are:
A claim to a method of “(1) receiving user information; (2) providing a polling question; (3) receiving and storing an answer; (4) comparing that answer to generate a `likelihood of match' with other users; and (5) displaying certain user profiles based on that likelihood” could practically be performed in the human mind (i.e., “[a] human mind could review people's answers to questions and identify matches based on those answers”), Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
A claim to “the collection of information from various sources (a Federal database, a State database, and a case worker) and understanding the meaning of that information (determining whether a person is receiving SSDI benefits and determining whether they are eligible for benefits under the law),” where “ `[t]hese steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do,' ” and thus can practically be performed in the human mind,In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022).”)
Once these selections have been received, generating the representations of the subparts is also a mental process. For example, a person could first draw the subparts, say a drawing of a tire and an axle. Next the person could draw an element representative of an abstraction of each subpart, e.g. a box labelled “tire” corresponding to the tire subpart, this box being the sematic node. The box could include additional details, such as connections to structural nodes in a drawn procedural graph representing the various structural nodes that describe different stages of a feature’s development (i.e. a first sketch being a first structural node, a second structural node being the extrusion of that sketch into 3D, etc.) or connections to other semantic nodes; these types of connections could be indicated by drawing arrows. The particular sub-elements of the semantic nodes that represent the connections could also have their own labels and identifiers.
Doing this on a generic computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Should it be found that this is not a mental process, it is also an example of mere data gathering.
in response to the user selection of the first and second subpart, assembling the first subpart with the second subpart by automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart;
“Assembling” the parts in such a manner is a mental process that amounts to no more than indicating these additional connections in the drawn diagram.
Doing this “automatically” on a generic computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
…generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart;
Generating such an updated representation is merely the result of drawing, as with a pencil and paper, a representation of the previously determined assembly.
Doing such on a generic computer in a true 3D renderer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Further, despite applicant’s arguments otherwise, the limitations have not been oversimplified during this analysis, rather the breadth of the claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, enables analogies such as the claimed graph creation being related to drawing a graph to accurately read on the claims.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or provide significantly more.
Examiner responds by explaining that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application nor do the claims provide significantly more. Particularly:
displaying, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receiving, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, a user selection of a first subpart and a second subpart of the plurality of candidate subparts;
Obtaining data through interactions with a graphical user interface, when recited at such a high level of generality and with a lack of detail as to how the interface is formed, how the part is displayed, what exactly the interaction consists of, etc. amounts to no more than mere data gathering. The claimed invention is directed to a method of constructing a particular representation of a design which is accomplished through abstract means; the use of a graphical menu to choose input for the core of the invention or display the output is merely incidental to the performance of this abstract process.
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity). … Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
Mere Data Gathering:
i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754; and
vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
i. Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937;
ii. Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55;
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.”
Further, should it be found that the displaying itself is not mere data gathering, it is also a part of the mere instructions to apply.
executing the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart;
Executing the graphs in this way merely consists of performing the procedure illustrated in the mental process of creating the graphs to produce geometry on the computer, performing the steps in the particular execution order that is claimed.
Applying a computer to perform a generic modelling at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that modelling, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the procedural graphs are “executed” and the updated 3D model is “generated” without reciting how this execution or model generation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
displaying, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object.
This limitation merely presents the results of the abstract process, and therefore amount to no more than mere insignificant post-solution activity.
A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A computer-implemented method for designing a product to be manufactured, the method comprising: displaying, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receiving, through user interaction with the graphical user interface … automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart; executing the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart; and displaying, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object.” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Further, while the applicant remarks that the claims “are directed to a significant improvement. Similarly to the McRo case, the claimed application is able to provide features that were not possible in the past.” it is not clear what alleged improvement is being referred to as no specific embodiments or improvements are actually argued or pointed to. As such, refer to the above remarks for explanations as to why the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application nor do the claims provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
A computer-implemented method for designing a product to be manufactured, the method comprising: displaying, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts;
“Displaying” such a representation of a part and its subparts is merely the act of drawing such a representation, as with a pencil and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
Performing this displaying step using a GUI and a true 3D renderer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Should it be found that this is not a mental process, this is also an example of mere data gathering.
receiving, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, a user selection of a first subpart and a second subpart of the plurality of candidate subparts; obtaining the first subpart and the second subpart of the product, in response to the user selection, each subpart being represented by a semantic representation having one or more semantic nodes, each semantic representation having, for each semantic node of the semantic representation, a respective procedural graph and a respective semantic description of the semantic node, the respective semantic description including: at least one semantic publication, each semantic publication pointing to a given node of the procedural graph of the semantic node and comprising an identifier to be pointed to by a semantic reference of another semantic node, and/or at least one semantic reference, each semantic reference comprising a path to point to a semantic publication of another semantic node by referencing to the identifier of the semantic publication, each semantic reference being pointed to by a node of the procedural graph of the semantic node;
Obtaining these subparts and the representations of them in such a manner is a mental process equivalent to drawing diagrams representative of such a structure.
Firstly, obtaining the selections of the subparts is merely the collection of information representative of said selections; this kind of simple data collection from users has been recognized by the courts as an example of a mental process (See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence section (III)(A)(c))
Once these selections have been received, generating the representations of the subparts is also a mental process. For example, a person could first draw the subparts, say a drawing of a tire and an axle. Next the person could draw an element representative of an abstraction of each subpart, e.g. a box labelled “tire” corresponding to the tire subpart, this box being the sematic node. The box could include additional details, such as connections to structural nodes in a drawn procedural graph representing the various structural nodes that describe different stages of a feature’s development (i.e. a first sketch being a first structural node, a second structural node being the extrusion of that sketch into 3D, etc.) or connections to other semantic nodes; these types of connections could be indicated by drawing arrows. The particular sub-elements of the semantic nodes that represent the connections could also have their own labels and identifiers.
Doing this on a generic computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Should it be found that this is not a mental process, it is also an example of mere data gathering.
in response to the user selection of the first and second subpart, assembling the first subpart with the second subpart by automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart;
“Assembling” the parts in such a manner is a mental process that amounts to no more than indicating these additional connections in the drawn diagram.
Doing this “automatically” on a generic computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
…generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart;
Generating such an updated representation is merely the result of drawing, as with a pencil and paper, a representation of the previously determined assembly.
Doing such on a generic computer in a true 3D renderer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
displaying, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receiving, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, a user selection of a first subpart and a second subpart of the plurality of candidate subparts;
Obtaining data through interactions with a graphical user interface, when recited at such a high level of generality and with a lack of detail as to how the interface is formed, how the part is displayed, what exactly the interaction consists of, etc. amounts to no more than mere data gathering. The claimed invention is directed to a method of constructing a particular representation of a design which is accomplished through abstract means; the use of a graphical menu to choose input for the core of the invention or display the output is merely incidental to the performance of this abstract process.
obtaining the first subpart and the second subpart of the product, in response to the user selection,
Generically “obtaining” these subparts, when recited at such a high level of generality without any specifics as to how this obtaining is actually accomplished, amounts to no more that gathering data representative of those subparts.
Post-solution activity:
displaying, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object.
This limitation merely presents the results of the abstract process, and therefore amount to no more than mere insignificant post-solution activity.
A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
executing the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart;
Executing the graphs in this way merely consists of performing the procedure illustrated in the mental process of creating the graphs to produce geometry on the computer, performing the steps in the particular execution order that is claimed.
Applying a computer to perform a generic modelling at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that modelling, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the procedural graphs are “executed” and the updated 3D model is “generated” without reciting how this execution or model generation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A computer-implemented method for designing a product to be manufactured, the method comprising: displaying, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receiving, through user interaction with the graphical user interface … automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart; executing the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart; and displaying, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object.” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity or mere instructions to apply and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
displaying, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receiving, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, a user selection of a first subpart and a second subpart of the plurality of candidate subparts;
Obtaining data through interactions with a graphical user interface, when recited at such a high level of generality and with a lack of detail as to how the interface is formed, how the part is displayed, what exactly the interaction consists of, etc. amounts to no more than mere data gathering. The claimed invention is directed to a method of constructing a particular representation of a design which is accomplished through abstract means; the use of a graphical menu to choose input for the core of the invention or display the output is merely incidental to the performance of this abstract process.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); … iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; … iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); … ii. Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55; iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.”)
obtaining the first subpart and the second subpart of the product, in response to the user selection,
Generically “obtaining” these subparts, when recited at such a high level of generality without any specifics as to how this obtaining is actually accomplished, amounts to no more that gathering data representative of those subparts.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); … iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; … iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); … ii. Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55; iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.”)
Post-solution activity:
displaying, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object.
This limitation merely presents the results of the abstract process, and therefore amount to no more than mere insignificant post-solution activity.
A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
executing the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart;
Executing the graphs in this way merely consists of performing the procedure illustrated in the mental process of creating the graphs to produce geometry on the computer, performing the steps in the particular execution order that is claimed.
Applying a computer to perform a generic modelling at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that modelling, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the procedural graphs are “executed” and the updated 3D model is “generated” without reciting how this execution or model generation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A computer-implemented method for designing a product to be manufactured, the method comprising: displaying, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receiving, through user interaction with the graphical user interface … automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart; executing the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart; and displaying, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object.” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 11 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
a first computer program for designing a product to be manufactured having instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to be configured to: display, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts;
“Displaying” such a representation of a part and its subparts is merely the act of drawing such a representation, as with a pencil and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
Performing this displaying step using a GUI and a true 3D renderer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Should it be found that this is not a mental process, this is also an example of mere data gathering.
receive, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, a user selection of a first subpart and a second subpart of the plurality of candidate subparts; obtain the first subpart and the second subpart of the product, in response to the user selection, each subpart being represented by a semantic representation having one or more semantic nodes, each semantic representation having, for each semantic node of the semantic representation, a respective procedural graph and a respective semantic description of the semantic node, the respective semantic description including: at least one semantic publication, each semantic publication pointing to a given node of the procedural graph of the semantic node and comprising an identifier to be pointed to by a semantic reference of another semantic node, and/or at least one semantic reference, each semantic reference comprising a path to point to a semantic publication of another semantic node by referencing to the identifier of the semantic publication, each semantic reference being pointed to by a node of the procedural graph of the semantic node;
Obtaining these subparts and the representations of them in such a manner is a mental process equivalent to drawing diagrams representative of such a structure.
Firstly, obtaining the selections of the subparts is merely the collection of information representative of said selections; this kind of simple data collection from users has been recognized by the courts as an example of a mental process (See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence section (III)(A)(c))
Once these selections have been received, generating the representations of the subparts is also a mental process. For example, a person could first draw the subparts, say a drawing of a tire and an axle. Next the person could draw an element representative of an abstraction of each subpart, e.g. a box labelled “tire” corresponding to the tire subpart, this box being the sematic node. The box could include additional details, such as connections to structural nodes in a drawn procedural graph representing the various structural nodes that describe different stages of a feature’s development (i.e. a first sketch being a first structural node, a second structural node being the extrusion of that sketch into 3D, etc.) or connections to other semantic nodes; these types of connections could be indicated by drawing arrows. The particular sub-elements of the semantic nodes that represent the connections could also have their own labels and identifiers.
Doing this on a generic computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Should it be found that this is not a mental process, it is also an example of mere data gathering.
in response to the user selection of the first and second subpart, assemble the first subpart with the second subpart by automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart;
“Assembling” the parts in such a manner is a mental process that amounts to no more than indicating these additional connections in the drawn diagram.
Doing this “automatically” on a generic computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
…generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart;
Generating such an updated representation is merely the result of drawing, as with a pencil and paper, a representation of the previously determined assembly.
Doing such on a generic computer in a true 3D renderer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
a second computer program for obtaining a semantic representation representing a subpart that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to be configured to: determine one or more semantic nodes; and for each semantic node, define a respective procedural graph and a respective semantic description of the semantic node, the semantic description including: at least one semantic publication, each semantic publication pointing to a given node of the procedural graph of the semantic node and comprising an identifier to be pointed to by a semantic reference of another semantic node, and/or at least one reference, each semantic reference comprising a path to point to a semantic publication of another semantic node by referencing to the identifier of the semantic publication, each semantic reference being pointed to by a node of the procedural graph of the semantic node, and/or…
Obtaining these subparts and the representations of them in such a manner is a mental process equivalent to drawing diagrams representative of such a structure. For example, a person could first draw the subparts, say a drawing of a tire and an axle. Next the person could draw an element representative of an abstraction of each subpart, e.g. a box labelled “tire” corresponding to the tire subpart, this box being the sematic node. The box could include additional details, such as connections to structural nodes in a drawn procedural graph representing the various structural nodes that describe different stages of a feature’s development (i.e. a first sketch being a first structural node, a second structural node being the extrusion of that sketch into 3D, etc.) or connections to other semantic nodes; these types of connections could be indicated by drawing arrows. The particular sub-elements of the semantic nodes that represent the connections could also have their own labels and identifiers.
Doing this on a generic computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
a data structure defining a subpart of a product, the data structure including: a semantic representation having one or more semantic nodes; and for each semantic node, a respective procedural graph and a respective semantic description of the semantic node, the semantic description including: at least one semantic publication, each semantic publication pointing to a given node of the procedural graph of the semantic node and comprising an identifier to be pointed to by a semantic reference of another semantic node, and/or at least one reference, each semantic reference comprising a path to point to a semantic publication of another semantic node by referencing to the identifier of the semantic publication, each semantic reference being pointed to by a node of the procedural graph of the semantic node, and/or a database comprising one or more product subparts each defined by the data structure.
Depicting a data structure defining these subparts and the representations of them in such a manner is a mental process equivalent to drawing diagrams representative of such a structure. For example, a person could first draw the subparts, say a drawing of a tire and an axle. Next the person could draw an element representative of an abstraction of each subpart, e.g. a box labelled “tire” corresponding to the tire subpart, this box being the sematic node. The box could include additional details, such as connections to structural nodes in a drawn procedural graph representing the various structural nodes that describe different stages of a feature’s development (i.e. a first sketch being a first structural node, a second structural node being the extrusion of that sketch into 3D, etc.) or connections to other semantic nodes; these types of connections could be indicated by drawing arrows. The particular sub-elements of the semantic nodes that represent the connections could also have their own labels and identifiers.
Doing this on a generic computer and using a database amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
display, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receive, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, a user selection of a first subpart and a second subpart of the plurality of candidate subparts;
Obtaining data through interactions with a graphical user interface, when recited at such a high level of generality and with a lack of detail as to how the interface is formed, how the part is displayed, what exactly the interaction consists of, etc. amounts to no more than mere data gathering. The claimed invention is directed to a method of constructing a particular representation of a design which is accomplished through abstract means; the use of a graphical menu to choose input for the core of the invention or display the output is merely incidental to the performance of this abstract process.
obtain the first subpart and the second subpart of the product, in response to the user selection
Generically “obtaining” these subparts, when recited at such a high level of generality without any specifics as to how this obtaining is actually accomplished, amounts to no more that gathering data representative of those subparts.
Post-solution activity:
and display, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object
This limitation merely presents the results of the abstract process, and therefore amount to no more than mere insignificant post-solution activity.
A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
execute the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart;
Executing the graphs in this way merely consists of performing the procedure illustrated in the mental process of creating the graphs to produce geometry on the computer, performing the steps in the particular execution order that is claimed.
Applying a computer to perform a generic modelling at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that modelling, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the procedural graphs are “executed” and the updated 3D model is “generated” without reciting how this execution or model generation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A device comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon: a first computer program for designing a product to be manufactured having instructions that, when executed by a processor causes the processor to be configured to: display, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receive, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, … automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart; execute the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart; and display, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object, and/or a second computer program for obtaining a semantic representation representing a subpart that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to be configured to: … and/or a data structure defining a subpart of a product, the data structure including: … and/or a database comprising one or more product subparts each defined by the data structure.” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity or mere instructions to apply and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
display, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receive, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, a user selection of a first subpart and a second subpart of the plurality of candidate subparts;
Obtaining data through interactions with a graphical user interface, when recited at such a high level of generality and with a lack of detail as to how the interface is formed, how the part is displayed, what exactly the interaction consists of, etc. amounts to no more than mere data gathering. The claimed invention is directed to a method of constructing a particular representation of a design which is accomplished through abstract means; the use of a graphical menu to choose input for the core of the invention or display the output is merely incidental to the performance of this abstract process.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); … iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; … iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); … ii. Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55; iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.”)
obtain the first subpart and the second subpart of the product, in response to the user selection
Generically “obtaining” these subparts, when recited at such a high level of generality without any specifics as to how this obtaining is actually accomplished, amounts to no more that gathering data representative of those subparts.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); … iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; … iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); … ii. Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55; iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and iv. Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.”)
Post-solution activity:
and display, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object
This limitation merely presents the results of the abstract process, and therefore amount to no more than mere insignificant post-solution activity.
A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
execute the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart;
Executing the graphs in this way merely consists of performing the procedure illustrated in the mental process of creating the graphs to produce geometry on the computer, performing the steps in the particular execution order that is claimed.
Applying a computer to perform a generic modelling at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that modelling, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the procedural graphs are “executed” and the updated 3D model is “generated” without reciting how this execution or model generation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A device comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon: a first computer program for designing a product to be manufactured having instructions that, when executed by a processor causes the processor to be configured to: display, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receive, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, … automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart; execute the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart; and display, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object, and/or a second computer program for obtaining a semantic representation representing a subpart that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to be configured to: … and/or a data structure defining a subpart of a product, the data structure including: … and/or a database comprising one or more product subparts each defined by the data structure.” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein each respective semantic description of each semantic node comprises a name of the semantic node and each path includes a reference to the name of a respective semantic node and to the identifier of a respective semantic publication.”
This merely clarifies what information is contained in the description and therefore merely specifies what is drawn/written in each drawn node, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere data gathering, and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the assembling includes, for each semantic reference of the one or more semantic references: identifying a semantic node of the second subpart having a name that corresponds to the name referenced by the path of the semantic reference and comprising a semantic publication having an identifier corresponding to the identifier referenced by the path of the semantic reference; and pointing the semantic reference of a first part to the semantic publication of the identified semantic node.”
Identifying a semantic node and publication that correspond to the name and identifier referenced by the path of a particular semantic reference is a mental process equivalent to observing the name and identifier referenced by the path, then observing the rest of the drawn diagram to find a semantic node and semantic publication that matches the name and identifying. Indicating that the reference of the first part is pointed to the corresponding semantic publication merely consists of drawing an arrow in the drawn diagram.
Claim 4 recites “prior to the assembling, the one or more semantic references of the first subpart each point to a respective semantic publication of a third subpart, the method further comprising, prior to the assembling: removing the pointing of the one or more semantic references each to a respective semantic publication of the third subpart, or prior to the assembling, each semantic publication of the second subpart to which one of the one or more semantic references of the first subpart is pointed to during the assembling is pointed to by a respective semantic reference of a third subpart, the method further comprising, prior to the assembling: removing the pointing of each respective semantic reference of the third subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart.”
Specifying that certain elements point to certain other elements prior to assembly merely clarifies the connections in the diagram before the assembly connections are drawn, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere data gathering, and mere instructions to apply. Removing the pointing between elements in the diagram merely consists of erasing the drawn arrows indicating the pointing.
Claim 5 recites “the method further comprising, for each subpart: computing a signature of each semantic node of the semantic representation representing the subpart, the signature concatenating: a name of the semantic representation; and the identifier of each semantic publication and/or the path of each semantic reference.”
Determining the signature by concatenating in such a way is a mental process equivalent to observing the name of the representation and the identifier of each semantic publication and/or the path of each semantic reference, and writing out the signature as a combination of these elements. For example, if the name of the representation is “Mug” and this representation has a node with a semantic publication that is identified ad “Handle,” creating the signature would merely consist of observing these facts on the diagram and writing out “Mug/Handle.”
Claim 6 recites “wherein the first subpart and the second subpart are stored in a database, the database further storing one or more additional subparts, the method further comprising: Identifying, in the database, at least one subpart having a signature that matches with the signature of the first subpart, the identified at least one subpart including the second subpart; and selecting the second subpart among the identified at least one subpart.”
Identifying an element in a set of data that matches the signature of a given element and selecting that identified element is a mental process equivalent to observing the set of data and judging which has a signature matching that of the initial given element. For example, if the given element A has the signature “Mug/Handle” and the data set has elements B-D with the signatures {B:“Desk/Lamp,” C:“Mug/Handle,” and D:”Tree/Leaf”}, a person could recognize that the signature of element C matches that of given element A and choose that element. Such a selection could further be indication visually by drawing a circle around the chosen element.
Further, storing and retrieving data from a database, i.e. receiving and transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory are explicitly recognized by the courts as example of well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;)
Claim 8 recites “wherein each subpart is a component or a component of a component of a Body in White, the Body in White comprising: - a HAT component including: -- a ROOF component including: --- a ROOF PANEL component; --- a REAR HEADER component; or --- a FRONT HEADER component, and -- a SIDE component including: --- an A-PILLAR component; --- a B-PILLAR component; --- a C-PILLAR component; --- a ROOF component; or --- a ROCKER component, - a FRONT component; and - a PLATFORM component including: -- a FLOOR-FRONT component including: --- a RAIL component; --- a PANEL component; --- a SEAT CROSSMEMBER component; or --- a TUNNEL component; and -- a FLOOR-REAR component.” This merely clarifies the types of structures the subparts can be, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere data gathering, and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 9 recites “wherein a name of a semantic node is the name of the component corresponding to the semantic node.”
Clarifying that these names match merely further clarifies aspects of the drawn diagram, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mere data gathering, and mere instructions to apply.
Claims 12-15 The elements of claims 12-15 are substantially the same as those of claims 2-5 Therefore, the elements of claim 12-15 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2-5.
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of claim 11, as inherited by claims 12-15, particularly: “A device comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon: a first computer program for designing a product to be manufactured having instructions that, when executed by a processor causes the processor to be configured to: display, in a graphical user interface, a three-dimensional (3D) representation of at least part of the product and a plurality of candidate subparts; receive, through user interaction with the graphical user interface, … automatically pointing one or more semantic references of the first subpart each to a respective semantic publication of the second subpart; execute the procedural graphs of the semantic representations of the first and second subparts according to the pointed one or more semantic references, wherein during the executing, each procedural graph pointing to a particular semantic reference is executed after the executing of the procedural graph pointed by a semantic publication pointed by the particular semantic reference, thereby generating an updated 3D modeled object representing an assembly of the first subpart and the second subpart; and display, in the graphical user interface, the updated 3D modeled object, and/or a second computer program for obtaining a semantic representation representing a subpart that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to be configured to: … and/or a data structure defining a subpart of a product, the data structure including: … and/or a database comprising one or more product subparts each defined by the data structure.” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the device further comprises the processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium.”
This merely clarifies how the general purpose computer components are connected, and is therefore merely an extension of the mere instructions to apply.
Claims 17-20 The elements of claims 17-20 are substantially the same as those of claim 16. Therefore, the elements of claims 17-20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/M.P.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
