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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to specification and to claims, filed 08/26/2025, are accepted and appreciated by the examiner. Examiner agrees with Applicant that the amendments to specification and claims do not introduce new matter, with support found in the specification as originally filed (dated 02/18/2023), in at least [0017].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2025 have been carefully reviewed and fully considered.
Regarding Specification, Amended 08/26/2025
Examiner agrees with applicant that amendments to specification in [0033], deleting the term “is funded” and replacing with “is gathered” clarifies meaning and intention. Likewise, amended language for [0034], deleting the term “those need” clarifies meaning. Examiner finds amendments to not change scope and do not introduce new matter. Objections to specification are withdrawn based on amended language.
Regarding rejection Claim under 35 USC § 112 (b)
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s attention and remarks directed to rejection made in error for Claim 10 under 35 USC § 112 (b). Rejection of Claim 10 is withdrawn, even as Applicant notes, Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Regarding rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 USC § 103
Applicant has requested reconsideration of rejections over prior art. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s attention to detail, arguing (Remarks, P11) as a reminder, for questions of obviousness over prior art, it is required that “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” based on In re Wilson, 424 F2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970); further, if an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious, based on In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). (as found in MPEP 2143.03)
With attention to independent claims 1 and 6, originally rejected as failing to differentiate over prior art based on obviousness combination of CAO (CN 113158292 A) in view of DELUKE (CA 3212200 A1), Applicant argues that claims, as currently amended, differentiate over the cited references, individually or in combination. Examiner holds that in original form, Claims 1 and 6 were properly rejected under 35 USC § 103. However, in view of amended claim limitation language, further evaluation to determine whether claims as amended distinguish over prior art is required.
Applicant argues (Remarks, Pg 13) specifically that claim limitation language of Claims 1 and 6 contains elements not taught either individually or in combination by the cited references. Applicant refers specifically to prior art of GIFFORD (US 20190163169 A1), pointing to Abstract, [0001] and [0010], as applied to Claim 10 in previous office action (dated 05/29/2025). Examiner understand arguments as suggesting that GIFFORD does not teach or suggest language as now recited in Claims 1 and 6 (as currently amended) of “lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component, so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data of the component and another measurement data of at least one false component”. Applicant further argues GIFFORD teaches away from claimed invention, specifically, GIFFORD teaches away from the inventive concept of “lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component” and that GIFFORD fails to teach or suggest the feature of “false component”. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s explanation (Remarks Pg. 15) to clarify intended meaning of claim limitation language (as originally recited in Claim 10, now incorporated into Claims 1 and 6), specifically, the nuance of Applicant’s intention regarding “lowering threshold”, pointing to Applicant’s specification [0050]. Examiner notes examination must be directed to the language found in claimed limitations, with interpretation that does not conflict with specification.
Applicant’s arguments (described above, Remarks, Pg 13-15, dated 08/26/2025) with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn, which is moot, noting that Claim 10 is cancelled.
However, noting that limitation language of claim 10 is now incorporated into Claims 1 and 6 (as currently amended), and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C §103 in view of new interpretation of claim limitation language based on Applicant’s arguments and further review of specification, newly found prior art references not relied upon or applied in the prior rejection of record for matter specifically challenged in the argument, and incorporation of matter specifically challenged into limitation language of amended Claim 1, resulting in new dependency not previously considered.
Further response to arguments, with attention to Applicant’s concerns regarding specific components and function of the claimed invention, along with attention to proper rejection under obviousness, with basis for new grounds of rejection is presented below.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims do fall into statutory categories as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 (See MPEP § 2106.03).
Specifically Claim 1 (currently amended) recites:
“component matching and reporting method, comprising steps of:…parsing a three dimensional (3D) file to obtain a plurality of features; analyzing the features according to a feature analysis parameter to find out at least one component feature; judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to a component according to a feature judgment parameter; locating the component when the at least one component feature corresponds to the component; measuring the component to output a measurement report after the component is located; and lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component, so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data … measurement data of at least one false component.”
Using Step One of eligibility analysis, Claim 1 is considered to be in an eligible statutory category: method (or process). (MPEP § 2106.03).
Next, evaluation under Step 2A, Prong One, applying broadest reasonable interpretation, reveals the limitation recites a judicial exception of abstract idea in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping, which includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) or “Mental Process” grouping, which includes concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Specifically, Examiner points to text emphasized above in bold in Claim 1 as evidence of the judicial exception. The terms “matching”, “parsing”, “analyzing”, “judging”, “corresponds”, and “locating” and “lowering a threshold” are statements of mathematical concepts, including calculations, or in the case of “judging” or “analyzing” represent a mental process of decision-making based on results or output of mathematical calculations. Each of these mathematical terms is followed terms indicating a description or name for a result of a mathematical process or description of a mathematical concept or process, or decision/judgment, emphasized above in double underline; or, the mathematical process includes a name for an input value or quantity (as emphasized above in single underline). Claim limitation language with these terms is interpreted as nothing more than a series of mathematical calculations or processes using input data. This interpretation and conclusion is supported by further review of the specification, for example, [0008] describing matching method to include the mathematical process of “parsing” and “analyzing” and “judging” and “locating”; or [0013] describing computational elements to facilitate mathematical processes to be carried out via execution of computational instructions. throughout specification, reciting mathematical processes and calculations.
In further evaluation of eligibility, Step 2A, Prong two was applied, with
consideration as to whether the limitations of Claim 1 recite additional elements
that may integrate the judicial exception into practical application. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)) Specifically, Examiner notes the following additional elements, as noted above in single underline, including: three dimensional (3D) file, feature analysis parameter, and component, feature judgment parameter. These terms represent quantities used in the mathematical concept/process for calculation or in comparative analysis of a result, which may be a mental process. In addition, the additional elements of measuring the component and measurement data are considered to gathering of numerical values to be used in mathematical processes, and are interpreted to be insignificant extra solution activity. The terms, as noted above in single underline interpreted as generally known or mere data gathering, necessary to provide numerical values based on measuring, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art, for use in recited mathematical operations or processes as recited. This interpretation is supported in further review of the specification, as noted above. The acquisition of data by measuring, intended to be used in the cited mathematical concept is not meaningful because this represents nothing more than a necessary precursor required to carry out mathematical calculation. (see MPEP 2106.05(g), 2106.05(f)) Further, location and arrangement of acquiring measurements necessary as input data for mathematical calculations, for example the location at which measurement is acquired, simply recite field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Thus, analysis under U.S.C. § 101 reveals Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well known, routine and conventional as evidenced by in the relevant art based on the prior art of record cited herein, including, for example: CAO (CN 113158292 A), COSTA (US-20240142920-A1), and AVAGYAN (Avagyan, et al., J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Feb 2007, 129(1): 190-201). Accordingly, additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements to not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the examiner does not view Claim 1 as improving the functioning of a computer, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), nor effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). The limit does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
Similarly, independent Claim 6, as currently amended, recites similar limitations, including: “component matching and reporting system,…storage device configured to store a 3D file and at least one instruction; …processor … execute the at least one instruction…parsing a 3D file to obtain a plurality of features; analyzing … features according to a feature analysis parameter to find out … component feature; judging…component feature corresponds to a component according to a feature judgment parameter; locating the component when component feature corresponds to the component; finding … measurement face of the component according to a measurement faces rule …; performing a key part measurement on the at least one measurement face of the component to obtain a measurement data; applying the measurement data…generate a measurement report; …lowering a threshold for judging whether … component feature corresponds to the component, … measurement report measurement data of the component … measurement data …false component.
Using Step One of eligibility analysis, Claim 6 is considered to be in a statutory category: machine (or manufacture). (MPEP § 2106.03). Similar to Claim 1, evaluation of Claim 6 under Step 2A, Prong One, and applying broadest reasonable interpretation, reveals the limitations recite a judicial exception of abstract idea in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping, including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) or “Mental Process” grouping, including: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Specifically, Examiner points to text emphasized in bold in Claim 6 as shown above. The terms “matching”, “instruction”, “execute the at least one instruction”, “parsing”, “analyzing”, “find out”, “judging”, “corresponds”, “locating”, “finding”, “applying”, “lowering a threshold”, are directed to mathematical calculations or processes involving direct or indirect comparative analysis, resulting in a comparative decision, conceptual result, or a numerical value. The terms “instruction” with “execute the at least one instruction” explicitly claims use of computational elements to carry out a mathematical calculation or process, and the terms “analyzing”, “find out”, “judging”, “corresponds”, or “lowering a threshold” which may be accomplished using computational methods, may also be considered as mental processes for decision making based on output from mathematical calculations or process. As noted above, claim limitation language with these terms is interpreted as nothing more than a series of mathematical calculations or processes using input data. These terms are connected with quantitative or qualitative results or output, as emphasized above in double underline. This interpretation and conclusion is supported by further review of the specification, as described above in Claim 1 discussion.
In further evaluation of eligibility, Step 2A, Prong two was applied to Claim 6, with consideration as to whether the limitations of Claim 6 recite additional elements that may integrate the judicial exception into practical application. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)) Specifically, Examiner notes the following additional elements in Claim 6, emphasized above in single underline, including use of computational elements of storage device and processor for carrying out mathematical processes, and terms indicating use of input data or reference parameters, including “3D file”, “component”, “feature judgment parameter”, “measurement face”, “measurement faces rule”, “measurement data”, or “false component”, and terms of “performing a key part measurement”, and “obtain a measurement data”. Examiner considers these as additional elements as referring to gathering of numerical values or data sets for use in mathematical operations, and is interpreted to be insignificant extra solution activity. The terms are interpreted as generally known or mere data gathering, necessary to provide numerical values based on measuring or from reference data sets, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art, for use in recited mathematical operations related to the calculations recited above. This interpretation is supported in further review of the specification, as noted above. The acquisition of data by measuring, intended to be used in the cited mathematical concept is not meaningful because this represents nothing more than a necessary precursor required to carry out mathematical calculation. (see MPEP 2106.05(g), 2106.05(f)) Further, location and arrangement of acquiring measurements necessary as input data for mathematical calculations, for example the location of monitoring stations, simply recite field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Thus, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well known, routine and conventional as evidenced by in the relevant art based on the prior art of record cited herein, and cited above. Accordingly, additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements to not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the examiner does not view this claim as improving the functioning of a computer, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), nor effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). The limit does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
As required for full analysis of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, dependent claims were
evaluated to determine presence of additional elements that may integrate the abstract ideas of independent Claims 1, and 6 into a practical application.
Specifically, Claims 2-5 with dependency to Claim 1, and Claims 7-9, with
dependency to Claim 6 were evaluated for additional elements. Examiner finds these dependent claims do contain additional elements.
Claim limitation terms were found in Claims 2-5 and Claims 7-9 reciting additional elements that include extra-solution data-gathering including use of stored reference parameters in mathematical concepts or calculations, or additional mathematical concepts or calculations, or naming of quantitative or qualitative results of calculations or processes. Examiner notes Claims 4 and 8 explicitly recite mathematical calculations, with neural network model for analysis of 3D file. Additional elements found in dependent claims is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as identified in Claim 1 and Claim 6. The additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, or provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea as recited in independent Claims 1 and 6.
When analyzed independently or in combination, dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are likewise held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) therein represent additional elements that describe insignificant extra solution activity, additional mathematical calculations, instructions or definitions for calculations, and/or numerical data to be used according to the recitation of the abstract ideas as discussed above for independent Claims 1 and 6, respectively.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Examiner notes application of guidance found in MPEP 2141 in determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. Specifically, factual inquiry steps described in 2141 (II): “An invention that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the relevant time is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, the framework for the objective analysis for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is stated in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries.” Further, the following steps for factual inquiries were used in evaluation of prior art used for obviousness rejection:
(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art;(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
(Examiner notes Claims are presented below without amended markup.)
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CAO (CN 113158292 A) in view of AVAGYAN (Avagyan, et al., J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Feb 2007, 129(1): 190-201).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently amended), CAO teaches:
A component matching and reporting method,
(Refer to translated copy provided in previous office action dated 05/29/2025; CAO in same technical area, see Abstract: "invention relates to the technical field of building engineering quantity calculation, specifically relates to a component matching method”; and see [0169]: “ intelligent engineering quantity report display of multi-dimensional parameters (area, template area, length, perimeter, etc.) is also provided”)
comprising steps of:
parsing a three dimensional (3D) file to obtain a plurality of features;
(CAO teaches 3D file structure to extract multiple attributes, see [0003]: “(2)…import and modify the 3D BIM model for calculations”; Refer to FIG. 1 with [0072] “S12: Analyze the target building model to obtain the component attributes of the target primitive to be matched”; and [0073]: “After the electronic device obtains the target building model, it analyzes it.”; Examiner notes the interpretation of claim limitation language of “parsing” to mean generally inspecting or reviewing various parts of a file, using broadest reasonable interpretation.”
analyzing the features according to a feature analysis parameter to find
out at least one component feature;
(CAO teaches analyses using target features/attributes, see [0073]: “By identifying the keywords of the target building model, each graphic element in the target building model can be determined, and then the component attributes of each graphic element can be extracted. The attribute of the component to be matched for the primitive”)
judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to a component according to a feature judgment parameter;
(CAO teaches comparative analysis for attribute identification, see FIG. 1 with [0008]: “attribute of the component to be matched is input into a preset matching model”; and see list of steps for analysis, starting [0030]: “training step of the preset matching model includes:”, [0031]: “Acquiring sample component attributes and matching component attributes” [0032]: “Input the sample component attribute into a preset matching model, and determine the predicted sample component attribute corresponding to the sample component attribute”; Examiner notes reference language “matching component attributes refers to a measured value of the attribute being investigated, as explained in [0152]: “matching component attribute is the expression of the corresponding component attribute in the measurement software”; Examiner notes interpretation claim limitation language of “judging” to generally mean a generic determination process driven by a present criteria for comparison between features. Examiner further notes interpretation of “feature” to bae analogous to reference teaching of “attribute”.)
locating the component when the at least one component feature corresponds to the component;
(CAO teaches identifying physical location, refer to FIG. 3 with [0088]: “shown in Figure 3, the electronic device analyzes the target building model to obtain floor information of each floor in the target building model, and then obtains the component attributes of the target primitive to be matched from the information on each floor”; Examiner notes the interpretation of claim limitation language of “locating the component” to mean generally to determine/identify a physical location of a physical object that corresponds to a model of object according to some pre-set matching criteria, analogous to refence language.)
measuring the component to output a measurement report
(CAO teaches direct measurement of attribute for comparison, [0081]: “input to the preset matching model can be the attributes of the components to be matched for all the primitives in the target building model, or the attributes of the components to be matched for one or some primitives selected by the user, etc. There are no restrictions on the data input to the preset matching model, and the corresponding input settings can be made according to requirements”; and report of data, see [0169]: “ intelligent engineering quantity report display of multi-dimensional parameters (area, template area, length, perimeter, etc.) is also provided”)
However, CAO is silent to the language of:
[measuring the component to output a measurement report] after the
component is located;
and lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component, so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data of the component and another measurement data of at least one false component.
Nevertheless, AVAGYAN teaches:
[measuring the component to output a measurement report] after the
component is located;
(AVAGYAN is directed to same technical field, see Abstract: “scanned 3D model may be provided as an input to a shape matching system to search the database for related or identical models with the purpose of extracting useful information”, and 1-Introduction: “paper is primarily concerned with the applications of 3D shape matching in manufacturing and product design”; AVAGYAN teaches measurement and comparison after a plausible candidate is determined in phases, see FIG 1, with Pg192,Col1, heading 3, “three different phases and shown in Fig. 1…scanned 3D model is input…first phase of the approach a matching algorithm based on the statistical similarity estimation is used to identify candidate models from the database…goal of this phase is to eliminate 3D models that have shapes dissimilar to the input and narrow down the list of possible candidates for more detailed shape comparison”.. and “last phase, adjusted candidate models are compared with the input and their shape differences…are identified. Based on this comparison each model is assigned a match quality value that indicates the matching accuracy with the input. The most accurate match becomes the output of this process along with a report on detected shape differences.”; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language of “located” to mean generally, identification of a suitable component for comparison, analogous to reference “identify candidate models from the database”.)
and lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component, so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data of the component and another measurement data of at least one false component.
Nevertheless, AVAGYAN teaches:
and lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component,
(AVAGYAN teaches lowering acceptance threshold to increase list of potential match candidates … see pg.192.Col2: “the filtered list of candidate models can be further reviewed by the user to select the most plausible ones for further processing …similarity threshold (described in Sec. 3.2) may be reduced by the user so the new database search yields a larger list of candidates…If none of the output matches are plausible, then the database should be searched again with a lower similarity threshold value.”; Examiner notes interpretation of claim language of “lowering a threshold for judging … corresponds to component” as analogous to reference of “plausible candidates”, and “larger list of candidates”, consistent with instant application, addressing Applicant’s argument regarding lowering threshold as a way to increase number of true positive components to be considered.)
so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data of the component and another measurement data of at least one false component.
(AVAGYAN teaches comparative measurement data reported for plausible and non-plausible candidates, see Pg191,Col2, 2 Literature Review “statistical methods are used to identify similar and dissimilar shapes with a significant accuracy”; and see, 3.2 Statistical Similarity Estimation: “for each 3D model a signature vector that represents a distribution of distances of randomly chosen point pairs on the model surface is calculated. The signature vector is the functional approximation of the shape features of the model…vectors are then compared and their difference is used as the numeric similarity measure of two objects…numeric similarity measure…comparison is tested against a user defined threshold… to determine whether the model should be discarded from further processing. Pg.192,Col2, 3-3D model matching an comparison methodology: “output of the automated matching process may produce an incorrect match”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CAO to include [measuring the component to output a measurement report] after the component is located, and lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component, so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data of the component and another measurement data of at least one false component, such as that of AVAGYAN.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify CAO to include [measuring the component to output a measurement report] after the component is located, and lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component, so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data of the component and another measurement data of at least one false component, as taught by AVAGYAN because it would be understood as an effective way to provide valuable data for optimization of a matching system. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of combining the statistical techniques taught by AVAGYAN with the method of CAO as an improvement for refining a matching system by fine-tuning sensitivity to include as many potential matching components through analyzing additional false positives. One of ordinary skill would understand the method of AVAGYAN as a way to further reduce, ensure quality, and provide insight into edge cases.
With respect to Claim 6 (Currently amended), CAO teaches:
A component matching and reporting system, comprising:
(See above, parallel claim limitation for Claim 1, CAO teaches this limitation in Abstract and [0169])
a storage device configured to store a 3D file and at least one instruction;
and a processor electrically connected to the storage device, the processor is configured to access and execute the at least one instruction for:
(CAO teaches standard computational elements, see [0050]-[0051]: “invention provides an electronic device, including: a memory and a processor, the memory and the processor are communicatively connected to each other, the memory is stored with computer instructions, and the processor…invention provides a computer-readable storage invention provides a computer-readable storage medium that stores computer instructions for causing the computer to execute the first aspect or any of the first aspects.”; and see [0185]: “memory 74 stores an application program, and the processor 71 calls the program code stored in the memory 74 to execute any of the above method steps”)
parsing a 3D file to obtain a plurality of features;
(See as above, parallel limitation in Claim 1, CAO teaches using 3D file structure to extract multiple attributes, see [0003], and refer to FIG. 1 with [0072] and [0073]; Examiner notes the interpretation of claim limitation language as above.)
analyzing the features according to a feature analysis parameter to find out at least one component feature;
(See as above, parallel limitation in Claim 1, CAO teaches analyses using target features/attributes, see [0073])
judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to a component according to a feature judgment parameter;
(See as above, parallel limitation in Claim 1, CAO teaches comparative analysis for attribute identification, see FIG. 1 with [0008] with list of steps for analysis, starting [0030]-[0032]; Examiner notes as above, reference language “matching component attributes refers to a measured value of the attribute being investigated, as explained in [0152; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language as discussed above.)
locating the component when the at least one component feature corresponds to the component;
(See as above, parallel limitation in Claim 1, CAO teaches identifying physical location, refer to FIG. 3 with [0088]; Examiner notes the interpretation of claim limitation language as discussed above.)
finding at least one measurement face of the component according to a
measurement faces rule after the component is located;
(CAO teaches identifying physical location, refer to FIG. 3 with [0088]: “shown in Figure 3, the electronic device analyzes the target building model to obtain floor information of each floor in the target building model, and then obtains the component attributes of the target primitive to be matched from the information on each floor”; CAO teaches selection based on pre-determined calculation rules, see [0170]: “built-in rules set the default values according to the relevant measurement standards”; Examiner notes the interpretation of claim limitation language of “finding at least one measurement face” to mean generally to determine/identify a feature or surface of a component corresponding to a model of object according to some pre-set matching criteria, analogous to refence language. )
performing a key part measurement on the at least one measurement face of the component to obtain a measurement data;
(As noted above, CAO teaches direct measurement of attribute for comparison, see [0081])
applying the measurement data to a report template to generate a
measurement report; and
(See above, parallel limitation for Claim 1, CAO teaches direct measurement of attribute for comparison, [0081]; and report of data, see [0169])
However, CAO is silent to the language of:
lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature
corresponds to the component, so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data of the component and another measurement data of at least one false component.
Nevertheless, AVAGYAN teaches:
lowering a threshold for judging whether the at least one component feature
corresponds to the component, so that the measurement report comprises the measurement data of the component and another measurement data of at least one false component.
(As above in parallel limitation in Claim 1, AVAGYAN teaches lowering acceptance threshold to increase list of potential match candidates … see pg.192.Col2; Examiner notes interpretation of claim language as discussed above.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CAO (CN 113158292 A) in view of AVAGYAN (Avagyan, et al., J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Feb 2007, 129(1): 190-201), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of PREBIL (US 20150165746 A1)
With respect to Claim 2, CAO, in view of AVAGYAN teaches:
The component matching and reporting method of claim 1,
(See references above as applied to Claim 1)
CAO further teaches:
wherein the step of measuring the component to output the measurement report comprises: applying the measurement data to a report template to generate the measurement report.
(See, as above, CAO teaches direct measurement of attribute for comparison in [0081]; and CAO teaches report output in [0169])
However CAO, as modified by AVAGYAN, as taught above, is silent to the language of:
finding at least one measurement face of the component according to a measurement faces rule after the component is located;
performing a key part measurement on the at least one measurement face of the component to obtain a measurement data; and
Nevertheless, PREBIL teaches:
finding at least one measurement face of the component according to a measurement faces rule after the component is located;
(PREBIL is in same technical area, see [0002]: ”disclosure relates generally to processes for joining structural components”; PREBIL teaches finding measurement face of component according to a pre-established reference, see [0061]: “scanning of the contour of the mating surface(s) and/or thermoplastic film(s) may be performed relative to one or more datums (not shown) or reference features (not shown) that may be established.”; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language of “measurement face of the component”, using broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean generally a portion of a component to be measured, analogous to reference language of “contour of mating surfaces”. Examiner further notes interpretation of claim limitation language of “finding” to be analogous to reference language of “scanning” in the context of locating some portion of a component for measurement.)
performing a key part measurement on the at least one measurement face of the component to obtain a measurement data;
(PREBIL teaches measurement of component, see [0060]: “contour of the mating surfaces and/or thermoplastic films covering the mating surfaces may also be measured using one or more contact metrology devices such as a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) or other contact-inspection device or technique”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify CAO, as modified by AVAGYAN, as taught above, to include finding at least one measurement face of the component according to a measurement faces rule after the component is located, and performing a key part measurement on the at least one measurement face of the component to obtain a measurement data, such as that of PREBIL.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to further modify CAO, as modified by AVAGYAN as taught above, to include finding at least one measurement face of the component according to a measurement faces rule after the component is located, and performing a key part measurement on the at least one measurement face of the component to obtain a measurement data, as taught by PREBIL because it would be understood as a needed step to accurately evaluate a 3D CAD file or other representation of a manufactured component to accomplish efficient a reliable matching. One of ordinary skill would understand that establishing a tolerance or criterion for comparison with a key part measurement would strengthen the method as disclosed by CAO and modified by DELUKE to result in increasing confidence in feature match.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable CAO (CN 113158292 A) in view of AVAGYAN (Avagyan, et al., J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Feb 2007, 129(1): 190-201), as applied to Claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view QIN (J Zhejiang Univ-Sci C (Comput. & Electron.) 2014 15(2):91-106) and BABIĆ (BABIĆ, et al., “Automatic feature recognition using artificial neural networks to integrate design and manufacturing: Review of automatic feature recognition systems", Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (2011), 25, 289–304.)
With respect to Claim 3, CAO in view of AVAGYAN teaches:
The component matching and reporting method of claim 1,
(See above references as applied to Claim 1.)
CAO further teaches:
the step of judging whether the at least one component feature corresponds to the component
(See above, parallel limitation in Claim 3, CAO teaches comparative analysis in step by step process see step described in [0032]; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language as above.)
judging whether the face is located on a core plate; and when the face is located on the core plate, [judging]
(CAO teaches component matching in multiple based on match to a target component, see [0033]: “Based on the attribute of the matching component and the attribute of the predicted sample component, the parameters of the predictive matching model are updated to determine the preset matching model”; and see [0048]: “calculation module is used to calculate the engineering quantity of the target building model based on the attributes of the target component”; and see FIG. 5 with [0107]: “setting of a wall primitive can add different components with multiple layers of materials in the structure…shown in Figure 5… field features for each layer of material properties” Examiner notes the interpretation of claim limitation language of “judging”, as discussed above. Examiner further notes broadest reasonable interpretation of “core plate” to mean generally a component that contains features required for matching to additional components.)
However, CAO, as modified by AVAGYAN as taught above, is silent to the language of:
wherein the component is a hook;
judging whether a face directly faces an opposite face;
judging whether an included angle between a chamfer face aimed by an opposite direction of a normal of the face and the normal of the face is in a predetermined angle range;
when the face directly faces the opposite face, when the included angle between the chamfer face is in the predetermined angle range,
judging that the face corresponds to a hook face of the hook.
Nevertheless, QIN teaches:
wherein the component is a hook;
(QIN is in same technical field, see Pg.91, 1-Introduction: “propose a deep learning approach to automatically classify 3D CAD models according to the mechanical part catalogue”; QIN teaches evaluation and classification of a range of commonly used component features, see Pg.94, “from several mechanical manufacturing enterprises”; See Table 1, Index 5, Index 8, disclosing range of component features; Examiner notes hook structures are mentioned throughout reference, reciting various hook structures common to 3D models, and extraction of those features.)
judging that the face corresponds to a hook face of the hook.
(QIN teaches such feature extraction, see Pg.91, “Automatic Feature Recognition (AFR) refers to the extraction of feature information with specific engineering semantics from part models”; Examiner notes interpretation of claim limitation language of “judging”, using broadest reasonable interpretation as analogous to reference language of “extraction of feature information” to identify a range of features, including hook structure, as shown int Table 1. Examiner asserts reference teaches this known process, including specific methods to accomplish feature extraction from a 3D file.)
However, CAO, as modified by AVAGYAN and further modified by QIN, as taught above, is silent to the language of:
judging whether a face directly faces an opposite face;
judging whether an included angle between a chamfer face aimed by an opposite direction of a normal of the face and the normal of the face is in a predetermined angle range;
when the face directly faces the opposite face, when the included angle between the chamfer face is in the predetermined angle range;
Nevertheless, BABIĆ teaches:
judging whether a face directly faces an opposite face;
(BABIĆ is directed to same technical field, see Abstract: “Automatic feature recognition (AFR)… review approaches based on application of artificial neural networks for solving major AFR problems”; and teaches determination of face orientation, see P290Col1: (bullet list) “judging whether a face directly faces an opposite face geometrical relations with other manufacturing features (dimension, position tolerance, and orientation)”, and P293§5.2L: “Face coding methods”; Examiner notes reference, a review of methods, discloses multiple ways to extract features, including face orientation methods. Examiner notes interpretation of “judging” to mean generally determining, and “directly faces” to mean generally to determine an orientation of a feature related to another feature, as taught by reference)
judging whether an included angle between a chamfer face aimed by an opposite direction of a normal of the face and the normal of the face is in a predetermined angle range;
(BABIĆ teaches evaluation of chamfer structures, see FIG. 1 (b); P290Col1: “used for examining a suitable method or process for creating the mentioned geometric feature. Transition features ( fillets, chamfers) … can be defined as subclasses of isolated features…interacting manufacturing feature represents any complex form created by an interaction between two or more isolated manufacturing features”; and see discussion of angle analysis, P293, Section 5.2. Face coding methods: “numerical value between 0 and 9 is allocated according to the relationship between the two faces. For example, if the angle between faces is a 90-degree value, 3 is allocated, and if the angle is a 180-degree value, 5 is allocated”; Examiner notes use of broadest reasonable interpretation of claim limitation language to mean generally, determining orientation of a transitional component (“chamfer”) connecting two other features, analogous to reference teaching of “interacting”, which would be known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.)
when the face directly faces the opposite face, when the included angle between the chamfer face is in the predetermined angle range;
(As above, BABIĆ teaches 3D file analysis for each of the features, including angle between transition features and faces, for example, see P290Col1: (bullet list); FIG. 1 (b); P290Col1;)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify CAO, as modified by AVAGYAN as taught above, to include a hook component and judge that a face corresponds to a hook face, such as that of QIN.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to further modify CAO, as modified by AVAGYAN as taught above, to include a hook component and judge that a face corresponds to a hook face, as taught by QIN because the hook structure represents a complex structure in a matching process, and it would be understood as advantageous to use the technique of QIN to broaden the identification and matching capacity to include a wider range of potential components. One of ordinary skill would understand that including the ability to evaluate a hook structure, expands the ability to identify the more complex geometries of a hook and a corresponding hook face using efficient and known methods for 3D file analysis. One of ordinary skill would see the modification as a way to increase the applicability of the system to a broader range of component types. It would be understood that including a hook component, as taught by QIN in the evaluation of 3D data as disclosed by CAO and modified by AVAGYAN, would also take advantage of existing and evaluation techniques to strengthen the overall effectiveness of a component matching process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify CAO, as modified by AVAGYAN and further modified by QIN, as taught above, to include the processes of judging whether a face directly faces an opposite face, judging whether an included angle between a chamfer face aimed by an opposite direction of a normal of the face and the normal of the face is in a predetermined angle range, and to use the criteria of when the face directly faces the opposite face, when the included angle between the chamfer face is in the predetermined angle range, and when the face is located on the core plate as an evaluative technique, such as that of BABIĆ.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify to modify CAO in view of DELUKE, and further in view of QIN, as taught above, to include the processes, as taught by BABIĆ, of judging whether a face directly faces an opposite face, judging whether an included angle between a chamfer face aimed by an opposite direction of a normal of the face and the normal of the face is in a predetermined angle range, and to use the criteria of when the face directly faces the opposite face, when the included angle between the chamfer face is in the predetermined angle range, and when the face is located on the core plate as an evaluative technique, because these evaluative processes would provide essential information for a more accurate and reliable determination of component matching. As taught by BABIĆ, the multi-feature evaluation processes as de