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 09/08/2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 09/08/2023 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawing dated 02/27/2023 has been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 7, missing a “the” before “results”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
• In paragraph 0002, line 3, “print” should read “printing”. “time consuming” should read “time-consuming”.
• In paragraph 0012, line 2, “label by” should read “label with”.
• In paragraph 0013, line 3, “one skilled in the art” should read “one of ordinary skill in the art”.
• In paragraph 0013, line 8, “scopes” with “scope”.
• In paragraph 0013, line 11, “detail” should read “details”.
• In paragraph 0014, line 5, “in to” should read “into”.
• In paragraph 0015, line 3, “is” should read “are”.
• In paragraph 0018, line 3 and 4, “performance” should read “the performance”.
• In paragraph 0020, line 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8, “computer readable” should read “computer-readable”.
• In paragraph 0022, line 1, “broadest possible interpretation” should read “broadest reasonable interpretation”.
• In paragraph 0023, line 5 and 6, “computer readable” should read “computer-readable”.
• In paragraph 0024, line 2, “special purpose” should read “special-purpose”.
• In paragraph 0024, line 11, “Internet enabled” should read “Internet-enabled”.
• In paragraph 0027, line 2, “programmed” should read “a programmed”.
• In paragraph 0027, line 3, “special purpose” should read “special-purpose”.
• In paragraph 0027, line 6, “or computer workstation” should read “or a computer workstation”.
• In paragraph 0030, line 7, “general purpose” with “general-purpose”.
• In paragraph 0030, line 8, “Microsoft Corp.’s Windows® and/or Apple Corp.’s Macintosh® operating systems” should read “Microsoft Windows® and/or Apple’s macOS®”.
• In paragraph 0031, line 1, “may can” should read “may”.
• In paragraph 0030, line 3, “commercially-available” should read “commercially available”. “including” should read “including,”.
• In paragraph 0032, line 6, “commercially-available” should read “commercially available”.
• In paragraph 0032, line 10, “operations available operations” should read “operations available”.
• In paragraph 0033, line 1, “and or/” should read “and/or”.
• In paragraph 0033, line 4, “general purpose” should read “general-purpose”. All scripts are programs, therefore, “capable of executing programs or scripts” should read “capable of executing programs”.
• In paragraph 0033, line 9, “programming/scripting languages” should read “programming languages”.
• In paragraph 0033, line 7, “C#®”: Objected to because the registered trademark symbol (®) is improper. “C#” does not appear to be a federally registered trademark in the United States. The applicant should delete the ® symbol.
• In paragraph 0034, line 7, “those skilled in the art” should read “one of ordinary skill in the art”.
• In paragraph 0034, line 10, “server 114” should read “server 114,”.
• In paragraph 0035, line 6, “those skilled in the art” should read “one of ordinary skill in the art”.
• In paragraph 0035, line 9, “Oracle 20i®”: Objected to because the registered trademark symbol (®) is improperly applied to “Oracle 20i.” Applicant should amend the text to “Oracle® 20i” if referring to Oracle’s product, or delete the ® symbol if “Oracle 20i” is not a registered trademark.
• In paragraph 0041, line 4, “user readable” should read “user-readable”.
• In paragraph 0041, line 9, “pre-defined” should read “a pre-defined”.
• In paragraph 0041, line 11, “Appendix A submitted …” No Appendix A found in the submitted documentation.
• In paragraph 0042, line 2, “established” should read “an established”. “perform” should read “performing”.
• In paragraph 0042, line 3, “part” should read “parts”. “user readable” should read “user-readable”. “dynamic” should read “a dynamic”.
• In paragraph 0042, line 5, “defined” should read “a defined”.
• In paragraph 0042, line 6, “use of dynamic” should read “the use of a dynamic”.
• In paragraph 0042, line 6, “part and assembly” should read “parts and assemblies”.
• In paragraph 0042, line 8, “using robotic” should read “using robotics”.
• In paragraph 0043, line 7, “known” should read “is known”.
• In paragraph 0045, line 8, “naming” should read “the naming”.
• In paragraph 0045, line 9, “a processes” should read “processes”.
• In paragraph 0045, line 11, “can performing a validation” should read “can perform a validation”.
• In paragraph 0046, line 13, “graphical” should read “a graphical”.
• In paragraph 0049, line 4, “processes” should read “process”.
• In paragraph 0052, line 4, “analysis on” should read “analysis of”.
• In paragraph 0059, line 4, “designed” should read “design”.
• In paragraph 0061, line 3, “results” should read “the results”.
• In paragraph 0062, line 3, “configurations embodiments” should read “configurations”.
• In paragraph 0062, line 4, “those skilled in the art” should read “one of ordinary skill in the art” or PHOSITA.
• In paragraph 0064, line 1, “description” should read “descriptions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites: “A method”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Yes. The claim recites, in pertinent part:
“for performing an automated review and analysis on a three- dimensional design, the method comprising: initiating, by a processor of a design development and review system, a review of a plurality of three-dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) files defining the three- dimensional design; “, which constitutes organizing the review of design documents;
“collecting, by the processor of the design development and review system, data related to the three-dimensional design;”, which is merely gathering information;
“performing, by the processor of the design development and review system, a pre-processing on the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design;”, which encompasses organizing, formatting, or preparing information for subsequent evaluation;
“performing, by the processor of the design development and review system, a validation of the three-dimensional design based on a plurality of pre-defined design rules and the pre-processing of the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files;”, which constitutes evaluating information by comparing it to predetermined criteria; and
“and generating, by the processor of the design development and review system, an analysis report based on results of performing the validation of the three-dimensional design.”, which merely reports or presents the results of the evaluation.
which recites to perform determinations and comparisons which are observations, collection, analysis, evaluations, judgements, opinions, and reporting. These are concepts what are performed in the human mind because the human mind is capable of making determinations and comparisons. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is directed towards mental process abstract idea.
STEP 2A PRONG 2: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The additional elements beyond the judicial exception consist of:
“a processor”;
“a design development and review system”;
“three-dimensional CAD files”;
“the collected data”; and
“pre-defined design rules.
A process, three-dimensional CAD files, the collected data, and pre-defined design rules, these additional elements merely identify the execution environment in which the abstract idea is performed and amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer technology. A design development and review system merely identifies the CAD software tool in which the abstract is performed and amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer technology. The design development and review system are the environment in which the abstract idea is performed. The processor merely performs the recited data collection, preprocessing, validation, and report generation. The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, any improvement to CAD technology, or any particular technological implementation for performing the claimed operations. Likewise, the recitation of CAD files, the collected data, as well as the pre-defined rules merely identifies the type of information being processed and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2016.05(f)) – “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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”.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, such as receiving information, collecting data, processing information, and generating a report are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Applying predefined rules merely carries out the claimed evaluation of the collected design data according to the predetermined criteria. This claim does not recite any specific improvement to the execution environment, nor to the design and development environment. The ordered combination likewise merely automates the workflow of reviewing design files, collecting relevant information, evaluating the information according to predetermined rules, and reporting the results. Automating a manual review process using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
“determining a review type for the automated review and analysis;” and
“in response to determining that the review type is a new review and analysis, creating a new analysis job and opening the new analysis job in a three-dimensional CAD application.”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Yes. These additional limitations continue to recite mental processes.
Specifically,
determining a review type constitutes making a decision or classification based on available information, which is an evaluation that can practically be performed in the human mind.
creating a new analysis job merely establishes a work item or organizational record for the review.
opening the new analysis job in a three-dimensional CAD application merely presents or accesses the selected work item within a generic software application.
Accordingly, claim 2 continues to recite the abstract idea of organizing, classifying, and managing information associated with a design review.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although claim 2 recites a three-dimensional CAD application, the CAD application merely serves as the development and review environment in which the abstract review process is performed. The claim does not recite any improvement to CAD technology, any improvement to computer functionality, or any particular technological mechanism for creating or opening the analysis job. Instead, the additional limitations merely automate the administrative task of selecting a review type, creating a corresponding review job, and opening that job within a software application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Creating a new analysis job and opening that job in a CAD application are pre-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional limitations merely automate the workflow of initiating a design review by selecting a review type, creating a corresponding review record, and opening that record for processing. The ordered combination therefore amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “in response to determining the review type … is a copy of a previous automated review and analysis …, creating a duplicate analysis job based on the previous automated review and analysis … and opening the duplicate analysis job in the three-dimensional CAD application.”
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite mental processes.
Specifically, the claim recites:
determining that the selected review type is a copy of a previous review;
creating a duplicate analysis job based on the previous review; and
opening the duplicate analysis job in a three-dimensional CAD application.
These limitations merely describe selecting an existing review, duplicating its associated work record, and opening the duplicated record for further processing. Such activities constitute organizing and managing information and represent the type of evaluation and administrative decision-making that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, claim 3 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, evaluating, and managing information associated with a design review.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although claim 3 recites a three-dimensional CAD application, the CAD application merely provides the development and review environment in which the abstract review workflow is carried out. The claim does not recite any improvement to CAD technology, computer functionality, or the operation of the CAD application itself. Instead, the claim merely automates the administrative task of duplicating a previously existing review job and opening the duplicate for further use.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Creating a duplicate analysis job from a previous review and opening the duplicate in a CAD application are simply pre-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered individually and as an ordered combination with claims 1 and 2, the additional limitations merely automate the workflow of reusing a previously completed review by duplicating its associated work record. The ordered combination therefore amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites: “in response to determining the review type … is a comparison of two previous automated reviews and analyses …, performing a side-by-side comparison of results from the two previous automated reviews and analyses.”
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, claim 4 recites:
determining that the review type is a comparison of two previous automated reviews and analyses; and
performing a side-by-side comparison of the results from the two previous reviews.
These limitations amount to evaluating, comparing, and analyzing information. Comparing two sets of review results to identify similarities or differences is an observation and evaluation that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, evaluating, comparing, and presenting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The recited side-by-side comparison merely displays or evaluates previously generated review results. The claim does not recite any improvement to computer technology, CAD functionality, or the operation of the design review system itself. Nor does it recite any particular technological mechanism for performing the comparison beyond using a generic computer to compare stored information. Instead, the claim merely automates the activity of comparing two prior review results within a CAD review workflow.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Performing a side-by-side comparison of previously generated review results constitutes post-solution activities. This additional element in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. These activities merely use a generic processor as a tool to automate an otherwise manual comparison. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claims 1 – 3, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of selecting a review type and, when appropriate, comparing two prior review results. This ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and further recites that, in response to determining that the review type is a new review and analysis:
reading a set of analysis data for the new analysis job; and
verifying a three-dimensional unit of measurement for the new analysis job.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
reading a set of analysis data, which constitutes gathering or obtaining information; and
verifying a three-dimensional unit of measurement, which constitutes evaluating information to determine whether the unit of measurement satisfies an expected criterion.
Reading information and verifying whether measurement units are correct are activities that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, these limitations continue to recite the abstract idea of collecting, evaluating, and organizing information associated with a design review.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim refers to a three-dimensional unit of measurement for a CAD design, the claim does not recite any improvement to CAD technology or any improvement to the operation of the computer itself. Rather, the processor merely reads stored analysis data and verifies a measurement unit before continuing the review process. These limitations merely use a generic computer to perform data retrieval and validation as part of an administrative review workflow and therefore do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Reading stored analysis data and verifying a unit of measurement are simply pre-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claims 1 – 4, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of initiating a review, selecting a review type, obtaining relevant review data, verifying measurement units, performing validation, and generating a report. The claim therefore amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further recites that, in response to determining that the review type is a copy of a previous automated review and analysis, the method comprises:
reading a set of analysis data for the previous automated review and analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitation continues to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, reading a set of analysis data for the previous automated review and analysis constitutes obtaining or gathering information for subsequent evaluation. Gathering and reviewing information are activities that can practically be performed in the human. Accordingly, the additional limitation continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and evaluating information associated with a design review.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim merely retrieves previously generated analysis data for use in a subsequent review. The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, CAD technology, data storage techniques, or retrieval mechanisms. Rather, the processor performs the function of accessing previously stored information. Accordingly, the additional limitation merely uses a generic computer to retrieve information as part of the abstract review workflow and therefore does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Reading previously stored analysis data is a simply pre-solution activity. This additional element in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claims 1 – 5, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of selecting a review type, retrieving previously generated analysis data, validating the design, and generating a report. These additional limitations amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7.
Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and further recites that, in response to determining that the review type is a comparison of two previous automated reviews and analyses, the method comprises:
reading a set of analysis data for the previous automated reviews and analyses.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitation continues to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, reading a set of analysis data for the previous automated reviews and analyses constitutes obtaining or gathering information for subsequent comparison and evaluation. Gathering information from multiple prior reviews is an activity that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the additional limitation continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and evaluating information associated with a design review.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claim merely retrieves previously generated analysis data from two prior reviews. It does not recite any improvement to computer technology, CAD functionality, or data retrieval techniques. Nor does it recite a particular mechanism for improving the efficiency, accuracy, or operation of the computer or the CAD application. Instead, the additional limitation merely uses a generic processor to retrieve stored information as part of the review workflow.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Reading stored analysis data from previous reviews is simply a pre-solution activity. The additional element in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claims 1 – 5, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of selecting a review type, retrieving analysis data from prior reviews, comparing or validating the information, and generating a report. These additional limitations amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further limits the preprocessing step to include:
analyzing a model tree;
standardizing part naming;
standardizing assembly naming;
assigning automatic attributes;
assigning additional attributes;
defining an assembly stack-up;
assigning attributes to features or parts;
defining process stations; and
defining a process area.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites organizing, classifying, and preparing information associated with a three-dimensional CAD design, including:
analyzing a model tree;
categorizing parts and assemblies according to naming conventions;
assigning attributes to features and parts;
defining assembly information;
defining manufacturing process stations; and
defining a process area.
These operations involve evaluating, classifying, organizing, and associating information according to predetermined criteria. Such activities are the types of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, even though the claim recites performing them using a processor.
Accordingly, claim 8 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, classifying, and analyzing information associated with a three-dimensional design.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although claim 8 recites operations involving CAD models and manufacturing information, the claim does not recite an improvement to the operation of the CAD application, an improvement to computer functionality, or a technological improvement in processing CAD data. Instead, the recited preprocessing operations merely organize and prepare design information for subsequent validation and analysis. The claim does not specify a particular technological mechanism by which analyzing the model tree, standardizing names, assigning attributes, or defining assembly information improves the operation of the computer or another technology. Accordingly, the additional limitations merely use a generic processor to perform information organization and preparation within a CAD design review workflow and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Individually, the recited operations are simply pre-solution activities, including organizing information, assigning metadata, categorizing design elements, and defining manufacturing-related information. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. As an ordered combination, the claim merely automates the preprocessing of design information before applying design-rule validation and generating a report. The ordered combination therefore amounts to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology rather than reciting a technological improvement.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further recites that validation comprises:
selecting an analysis checklist from a plurality of predefined checklists;
performing an analysis based on the selected analysis checklist;
performing an ad hoc check;
performing an automation process check based on predefined design rules;
performing one or more additional rule checks;
storing validation results; and
exporting the validation results.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
selecting a checklist for evaluation;
evaluating the CAD files according to predetermined criteria;
performing additional evaluations based on predefined rules;
storing the evaluation results; and
exporting the evaluation results.
These limitations collectively describe collecting, evaluating, organizing, and reporting information. Selecting rules or checklists and applying those rules to determine whether information satisfies specified criteria are evaluations that can practically be performed in the human mind, even if the claimed method performs them using a processor. Accordingly, claim 9 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, evaluating, and reporting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites validating three-dimensional CAD files using predefined checklists and design rules, the claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, CAD technology, or the operation of the design review system itself. The predefined checklists and design rules merely define the criteria used to evaluate the CAD data. Likewise, storing and exporting the validation results are generic post-solution activities that merely preserve and communicate the results of the abstract evaluation. Accordingly, the additional limitations merely use a generic processor to evaluate design information according to predetermined rules and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Selecting predefined checklists, storing evaluation results, and exporting those results are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Applying predefined rules merely carries out the claimed evaluation of the collected design data according to the predetermined criteria. . This claim does not recite any specific improvement to the execution environment, nor to the design and development environment. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claim 1, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of selecting evaluation criteria, validating design information against those criteria, recording the results, and exporting the results. The ordered combination therefore amounts to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10.
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and further recites generating an analysis report by:
importing the validation results;
creating a report job file;
adding one or more design issues to the report job file;
reading values associated with predefined design rules;
selecting a report design from predefined report designs;
generating an analysis report using the selected report design; and
exporting the generated analysis report.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
obtaining validation results;
organizing the validation results into a report job file;
associating design issues with the report;
retrieving predefined rule values;
selecting a report format;
generating a report; and
exporting the completed report.
These limitations constitute collecting, organizing, formatting, and presenting information. Preparing a report from previously obtained information according to selected formatting criteria is an activity that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, claim 10 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing, and presenting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites generating an analysis report relating to a three-dimensional CAD design, the report generation merely presents the results of the previously performed validation. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer, the CAD application, or report-generation technology itself. Creating a report job file, selecting a report design, and exporting the completed report merely specify how the information is organized and presented and therefore constitute insignificant post-solution activity performed using generic computer technology. Accordingly, the claim merely uses a generic processor to organize and present information and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Importing data, creating report files, reading stored values, selecting predefined templates, generating reports, and exporting reports are simply post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claims 1 and 8, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of receiving validation results, organizing the results into a report, formatting the report according to predefined templates, and exporting the completed report. These activities amount to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites: “A system”.
Claim 11 is directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
initiate a review of a plurality of three-dimensional CAD files;
collect data related to the three-dimensional design;
perform preprocessing on the CAD files and collected data;
validate the three-dimensional design based on predefined design rules; and
generate an analysis report.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 11 recites a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
initiating a review of CAD files;
collecting design information;
preprocessing the collected information;
evaluating the design according to predefined rules; and
generating a report based on the evaluation.
These limitations collectively recite collecting, organizing, analyzing, evaluating, and reporting information. Such activities are the types of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, even though the claim recites that the operations are carried out by a processor. Accordingly, claim 11 recites the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, evaluating, and reporting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The additional elements beyond the judicial exception comprise:
a processor;
a memory; and
instructions stored in the memory.
These additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. The processor performs data processing operations, while the memory merely stores instructions and data. The claim does not recite any improvement to processor architecture, memory operation, CAD technology, or computer functionality. Likewise, the recitation of CAD files merely identifies the type of information being processed and does not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer technology and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim also fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The processor and memory perform their ordinary and expected functions of storing instructions, retrieving data, processing information, and generating output. Individually, they are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. As an ordered combination, the processor and memory merely automate the workflow of reviewing CAD files, collecting information, validating the information according to predefined rules, and generating a report. The ordered combination therefore amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and further recites that the processor is configured to:
determine a review type;
if the review type is a new review, create and open a new analysis job;
if the review type is a copy of a previous review, create and open a duplicate analysis job; and
if the review type is a comparison of two previous reviews, perform a side-by-side comparison of the previous review results.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
determining a review type;
selecting among alternative review workflows;
creating or duplicating an analysis job based on the selected workflow; and
comparing results from previous reviews.
These limitations constitute classifying information, making administrative decisions based on that information, organizing review activities, and comparing information. Such activities are the types of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, claim 12 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, evaluating, comparing, and managing information associated with a design review.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites a processor executing instructions within a three-dimensional CAD application, the processor merely performs workflow management operations. The claim does not recite an improvement to computer functionality, the CAD application, or any other technology.
Creating or duplicating an analysis job and performing a side-by-side comparison merely define alternative administrative responses depending on the selected review type. These operations use generic computer technology as a tool to perform the abstract workflow. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor and memory perform their functions of executing instructions, storing data, retrieving information, and presenting information. Likewise, determining a review type, creating or duplicating a review job, and comparing previous review results are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claim 11, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of selecting a review type, managing review jobs, and comparing review results using generic computer technology. The ordered combination therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and further recites that collecting data comprises:
in response to determining that the review type is a new review, reading a set of analysis data for the new analysis job and verifying a three-dimensional unit of measurement for the new analysis job;
in response to determining that the review type is a copy of a previous review, reading a set of analysis data for the previous automated review and analysis; and
in response to determining that the review type is a comparison of two previous reviews, reading a set of analysis data for the previous automated reviews and analyses.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
retrieving analysis data corresponding to a selected review type; and
verifying the unit of measurement associated with a new analysis job.
Reading previously stored analysis data constitutes obtaining information for subsequent evaluation, while verifying a unit of measurement constitutes evaluating information according to predetermined criteria. These are activities that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, claim 13 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, retrieving, and evaluating information associated with a three-dimensional design review.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites retrieving CAD-related analysis data and verifying a three-dimensional unit of measurement, the processor merely performs data retrieval and validation operations. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer, memory, CAD application, or any other technology. Nor does it recite correcting measurement units, modifying CAD data, or improving the processing of CAD models. Instead, the additional limitations merely gather information and verify that the information satisfies predetermined criteria as part of the overall review workflow. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Reading stored analysis data and verifying measurement units are simply pre-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claims 11 and 12, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of selecting a review type, retrieving associated analysis data, verifying measurement information, and continuing the design review process using generic computer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14.
Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and further recites that the processor performs preprocessing by:
analyzing a model tree for the three-dimensional design;
standardizing part naming based on part type;
standardizing assembly naming based on assembly type;
assigning automatic attributes based on feature or part recognition;
assigning additional attributes;
defining an assembly stack-up;
assigning attributes to features or parts;
defining a plurality of process stations; and
defining a process area based on the process stations.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites organizing, classifying, and preparing information associated with a three-dimensional CAD design, including:
analyzing the organization of a model tree;
classifying parts and assemblies according to naming conventions;
assigning metadata to design elements;
defining assembly-related information; and
defining manufacturing process information.
These operations involve evaluating, categorizing, organizing, and associating information according to predetermined criteria. Such activities are the types of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, even though the claim recites performing them using a processor.
Accordingly, claim 14 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, classifying, and analyzing information associated with a three-dimensional design.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites preprocessing operations performed on CAD data, the claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the processor, memory, CAD application, or any other computer technology. Nor does it recite a particular algorithm or technique that improves the processing of CAD models. Instead, the preprocessing operations merely organize and prepare design information for subsequent validation. The processor performs these operations using generic computer functionality.
Accordingly, the additional limitations merely use generic computer technology to organize and prepare information and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor and memory perform their ordinary functions of storing, retrieving, organizing, and processing information. Likewise, analyzing a model tree, standardizing naming conventions, assigning attributes, and defining assembly information constitute are simply pre-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claim 11, the ordered combination merely automates the preprocessing of CAD-related information before validation and report generation using generic computer technology. The ordered combination therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15.
Claim 15 depends from claim 11 and further recites that the processor performs validation by:
selecting an analysis checklist from a plurality of predefined checklists;
performing an analysis on the pre-processed CAD files based on the selected analysis checklist;
performing an ad hoc check on the pre-processed CAD files;
performing an automation process check on the pre-processed CAD files based on predefined design rules;
performing one or more additional rule checks on the pre-processed CAD files;
storing a set of validation results; and
exporting the validation results.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
selecting a checklist for evaluation;
evaluating CAD data according to predefined criteria;
performing additional evaluations based on predefined design rules;
storing the resulting information; and
exporting the resulting information.
These limitations collectively describe collecting, evaluating, organizing, and reporting information. Selecting predefined rules or checklists and applying those rules to determine whether design information satisfies specified criteria are evaluations that can practically be performed in the human mind, even though the claim recites that they are performed by a processor. Accordingly, claim 15 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, evaluating, organizing, and reporting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites validating three-dimensional CAD files using predefined checklists and design rules, the processor merely executes information-processing operations. The claim does not recite any improvement to processor functionality, memory operation, CAD technology, or another computer technology. The predefined checklists and rules merely specify the criteria used during evaluation. Likewise, storing and exporting the validation results merely preserve and communicate the results of the evaluation and constitute insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional limitations merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor and memory perform their ordinary functions of executing instructions, processing information, storing data, and exporting results. Likewise, selecting predefined checklists, storing validation results, and exporting those results are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Applying predefined rules merely carries out the claimed evaluation of the collected design data according to the predetermined criteria. This claim does not recite any specific improvement to the execution environment, nor to the design and development environment. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claim 11, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of selecting evaluation criteria, validating design information, recording the results, and exporting the results using generic computer technology. The ordered combination therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and further recites generating an analysis report by:
importing the validation results;
creating a report job file based on the imported results;
adding one or more design issues to the report job file;
reading values associated with predefined design rules;
selecting a report design from a plurality of predefined report designs;
generating an analysis report using the selected report design; and
exporting the generated analysis report.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
obtaining previously generated validation results;
organizing the validation results into a report job file;
associating design issues with the report;
retrieving predefined rule values;
selecting a report format;
generating a report; and
exporting the report.
These limitations constitute collecting, organizing, formatting, and presenting information. Preparing a report from previously generated information according to selected formatting criteria is the type of activity that can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, claim 16 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing, and presenting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites report generation in the context of validating a three-dimensional CAD design, the processor merely organizes and presents previously generated information. The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, report-generation technology, CAD technology, or another technological field.
Creating a report job file, selecting a report design, generating a report using predefined templates, and exporting the report merely define how information is formatted and presented. These constitute insignificant post-solution activity implemented using generic computer technology. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor and memory perform their ordinary functions of executing instructions, retrieving data, organizing information, generating output, and exporting files. Likewise, importing validation results, creating a report file, selecting a report template, generating a report, and exporting the report are simply post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claims 11 and 15, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of receiving validation results, organizing those results into a report, formatting the report according to predefined templates, and exporting the completed report using generic computer technology. The ordered combination therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites: “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium”.
Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
initiate a review of a plurality of three-dimensional CAD files;
collect data related to the three-dimensional design;
perform preprocessing on the CAD files and collected data;
validate the three-dimensional design based on predefined design rules; and
generate an analysis report based on the validation results.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 17 recites a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
initiating a review of CAD files;
collecting design information;
preprocessing the collected information;
evaluating the design according to predefined rules; and
generating a report based on the evaluation.
These limitations collectively recite collecting, organizing, analyzing, evaluating, and reporting information. Such activities are the types of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, even though the claim recites that they are performed by executing instructions on a processor. Accordingly, claim 17 recites the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, evaluating, and reporting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The additional elements beyond the judicial exception comprise:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium;
instructions stored on the medium;
a processor that executes the instructions;
CAD files;
the collected data;
predefined design rules.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium merely stores instructions, while the processor executes the instructions to perform information-processing operations. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer-readable medium, the processor, the CAD application, or another technology. Likewise, the recitation of CAD files, the collected data, and predefined design rules merely identifies the type of information being processed and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer technology and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The non-transitory computer-readable medium performs its ordinary function of storing instructions, and the processor performs its ordinary function of executing those instructions to process information. Initiating a review of a plurality of three-dimensional CAD files, collecting data related to the three-dimensional design, performing preprocessing on the CAD files and collected data, and generating an analysis report based on the validation results are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Validating the three-dimensional design based on predefined design rules merely carries out the claimed evaluation of the collected design data according to the predetermined criteria. This claim does not recite any specific improvement to the execution environment, nor to the design and development environment. As an ordered combination, the claimed medium and processor merely automate the workflow of reviewing CAD files, collecting information, validating the information according to predefined rules, and generating a report. The ordered combination therefore amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic computer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and further recites that the instructions cause the processor to perform preprocessing by:
analyzing a model tree for the three-dimensional design;
standardizing part naming based on part type;
standardizing assembly naming based on assembly type;
assigning automatic attributes based on feature or part recognition;
assigning additional attributes;
defining an assembly stack-up;
assigning attributes to features or parts;
defining a plurality of process stations; and
defining a process area based on the plurality of process stations.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites organizing, classifying, and preparing information associated with a three-dimensional CAD design, including:
analyzing the organization of a model tree;
classifying parts and assemblies according to naming conventions;
assigning metadata to features and parts;
defining assembly-related information; and
defining manufacturing process information.
These operations involve evaluating, categorizing, organizing, and associating information according to predetermined criteria. Such activities are the types of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, even though the claim recites performing them using instructions executed by a processor. Accordingly, claim 18 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, classifying, and analyzing information associated with a three-dimensional design.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites preprocessing operations performed on CAD data, the non-transitory computer-readable medium merely stores instructions that cause a generic processor to organize and prepare design information. The claim does not recite any improvement to the operation of the processor, the computer-readable medium, the CAD application, or another technology. Nor does it recite a specific algorithm or technique that improves CAD processing. Instead, the recited preprocessing operations prepare design information for subsequent validation and reporting using computer functionality. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The non-transitory computer-readable medium performs its ordinary function of storing instructions, while the processor performs its ordinary function of executing those instructions to organize and process information. Likewise, analyzing a model tree, standardizing naming conventions, assigning attributes, defining assembly information, and defining process stations constitute simply pre-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claim 17, the ordered combination merely automates the preprocessing of CAD-related information before validation and report generation using generic computer technology. The ordered combination therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19.
Claim 19 depends from claim 17 and further recites that the instructions cause the processor to perform validation by:
selecting an analysis checklist from a plurality of predefined checklists;
performing an analysis on the pre-processed CAD files based on the selected analysis checklist;
performing an ad hoc check on the pre-processed CAD files;
performing an automation process check on the pre-processed CAD files based on the plurality of predefined design rules;
performing one or more additional rule checks on the pre-processed CAD files;
storing a set of validation results; and
exporting the validation results.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process.
Specifically, the claim recites:
selecting a checklist for evaluation;
evaluating CAD data according to predetermined criteria;
applying additional predefined design rules;
storing the resulting information; and
exporting the resulting information.
These limitations collectively describe collecting, analyzing, evaluating, organizing, and reporting information. Selecting evaluation criteria and applying predefined rules to determine whether design information satisfies specified conditions are evaluations that can practically be performed in the human mind, even though the claim recites performing them using instructions executed by a processor. Accordingly, claim 19 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing, evaluating, and reporting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites validating three-dimensional CAD files using predefined checklists and design rules, the non-transitory computer-readable medium merely stores instructions that cause a generic processor to perform information-processing operations. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the processor, the computer-readable medium, the CAD application, or another technology.
The predefined checklists and design rules merely define the criteria used during evaluation; while storing and exporting the validation results merely preserve and communicate the results of that evaluation. These activities constitute insignificant extra-solution activity implemented using generic computer technology. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The non-transitory computer-readable medium performs its ordinary function of storing instructions, while the processor performs its ordinary function of executing those instructions to process, store, and export information. Likewise, selecting predefined checklists, storing validation results, and exporting those results are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Applying predefined rules merely carries out the claimed evaluation of the collected design data according to the predetermined criteria. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claim 17, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of selecting evaluation criteria, validating design information, recording the results, and exporting those results using generic computer technology. The ordered combination therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and further recites that the instructions cause the processor to generate an analysis report by:
importing the validation results;
creating a report job file based on the imported validation results;
adding one or more design issues to the report job file;
reading values associated with predefined design rules;
selecting a report design from a plurality of predefined report designs;
generating an analysis report using the selected report design; and
exporting the generated analysis report.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The additional limitations continue to recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites:
obtaining previously generated validation results;
organizing the validation results into a report job file;
associating design issues with the report;
retrieving predefined rule values;
selecting a report format;
generating a report; and
exporting the report.
These limitations constitute collecting, organizing, formatting, and presenting information. Preparing a report from previously generated information according to selected formatting criteria is an activity that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, claim 20 continues to recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing, and presenting information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claim recites generating an analysis report relating to the validation of a three-dimensional CAD design, the non-transitory computer-readable medium merely stores instructions that cause a generic processor to organize and present previously generated information. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the processor, the computer-readable medium, report-generation technology, the CAD application, or any other technology. Creating a report job file, selecting a report design, generating the report using predefined templates, and exporting the report merely define how information is organized and presented. These constitute insignificant extra-solution activity implemented using generic computer technology. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The non-transitory computer-readable medium performs its ordinary function of storing instructions, while the processor performs its ordinary functions of executing those instructions, retrieving information, generating output, and exporting files.
Likewise, importing validation results, creating a report job file, reading predefined rule values, selecting a report template, generating a report, and exporting the report are simply post-solution activities. These additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considering the claim as a whole, including the limitations of claims 17 and 19, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of receiving validation results, organizing those results into a report, formatting the report according to predefined templates, and exporting the completed report using generic computer technology. The ordered combination therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “performing, by the processor of the design development and review system, a pre-processing on the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design.” However, the term “pre-processing” is not defined in the claims or the specification, nor does the specification identify the operations that constitute the claimed pre-processing. The specification also fails to provide objective boundaries distinguishing the claimed pre-processing from the subsequently recited validation of the three-dimensional design. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed “pre-processing,” including which operations are encompassed by the term and which operations are excluded. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 8 recites:
“assigning one or more automatic attributes to each of one or more features …”;
“assigning one or more additional attributes to the three-dimensional design”; and
“assigning one or more attributes to one or more features of one or more parts.”
The claims and the specification do not define or otherwise provide objective boundaries distinguishing the recited “automatic attributes,” “additional attributes,” and “attributes.” In particular, it is unclear what characteristics make an attribute “automatic,” what distinguishes an “additional attribute” from an “automatic attribute,” and how either differs from the subsequently recited generic “attributes.” Because the specification does not explain whether these recitations refer to mutually exclusive categories of attributes, overlapping categories, or merely different manners of assignment, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of each limitation. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 8 also recites “defining a plurality of process stations,” but the specification does not define what constitutes a “process station” or provide objective boundaries distinguishing a process station from another process step, workflow stage, manufacturing operation, or other processing activity. Accordingly, it is unclear what structure or activity is encompassed by the claimed “process stations.”
The claim further recites “defining a process area … based on the plurality of process stations,” but the specification does not define “process area” or explain how a process area is determined from the plurality of process stations. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 11 recites “performing a pre-processing on the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design; performing a validation of the three-dimensional design based on a plurality of pre-defined design rules and the pre-processing of the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files;” However, the term “pre-processing” is not defined in the claims or the specification, nor does the specification identify the operations that constitute the claimed pre-processing. The specification also fails to provide objective boundaries distinguishing the claimed pre-processing from the subsequently recited validation of the three-dimensional design. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed “pre-processing,” including which operations are encompassed by the term and which operations are excluded. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 14 recites: “assigning one or more automatic attributes to each of one or more features of the three-dimensional design of one or more parts of the three-dimensional design based on recognition of the one or more features or one or more parts; assigning one or more additional attributes to the three-dimensional design; defining an assembly stack-up for the three-dimensional design; assigning one or more attributes to one or more features of one or more parts; defining a plurality of process stations for assembly of the three-dimensional design; and defining a process area for assembly of the three-dimensional design based on the plurality of process stations.” The claims and the specification do not define or otherwise provide objective boundaries distinguishing the recited “automatic attributes,” “additional attributes,” and “attributes.” In particular, it is unclear what characteristics make an attribute “automatic,” what distinguishes an “additional attribute” from an “automatic attribute,” and how either differs from the subsequently recited generic “attributes.” Because the specification does not explain whether these recitations refer to mutually exclusive categories of attributes, overlapping categories, or merely different manners of assignment, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of each limitation. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 14 also recites “defining a plurality of process stations,” but the specification does not define what constitutes a “process station” or provide objective boundaries distinguishing a process station from another process step, workflow stage, manufacturing operation, or other processing activity. Accordingly, it is unclear what structure or activity is encompassed by the claimed “process stations.”
The claim further recites “defining a process area … based on the plurality of process stations,” but the specification does not define “process area” or explain how a process area is determined from the plurality of process stations. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 16 is directed to a method but depends from claim 15, which is directed to a system. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 17 recites “collecting data related to the three-dimensional design; performing a pre-processing on the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design; performing a validation of the three-dimensional design based on a plurality of pre-defined design rules and the pre-processing of the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files; and generating an analysis report based on results of performing the validation of the three-dimensional design.” However, the term “pre-processing” is not defined in the claims or the specification, nor does the specification identify the operations that constitute the claimed pre-processing. The specification also fails to provide objective boundaries distinguishing the claimed pre-processing from the subsequently recited validation of the three-dimensional design. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed “pre-processing,” including which operations are encompassed by the term and which operations are excluded. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 18 recites: “assigning one or more attributes to one or more features of one or more parts; defining a plurality of process stations for assembly of the three-dimensional design; and defining a process area for assembly of the three-dimensional design based on the plurality of process stations.”
The claims and the specification do not define or otherwise provide objective boundaries distinguishing the recited “automatic attributes,” “additional attributes,” and “attributes.” In particular, it is unclear what characteristics make an attribute “automatic,” what distinguishes an “additional attribute” from an “automatic attribute,” and how either differs from the subsequently recited generic “attributes.” Because the specification does not explain whether these recitations refer to mutually exclusive categories of attributes, overlapping categories, or merely different manners of assignment, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of each limitation. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 18 also recites “defining a plurality of process stations,” but the specification does not define what constitutes a “process station” or provide objective boundaries distinguishing a process station from another process step, workflow stage, manufacturing operation, or other processing activity. Accordingly, it is unclear what structure or activity is encompassed by the claimed “process stations.”
The claim further recites “defining a process area for assembly of the three-dimensional design based on the plurality of process stations.” but the specification does not define “process area” or explain how a process area is determined from the plurality of process stations. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
The remaining, not specifically mentioned, are rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altium_2022 (Altium Designer Documentation version 22, 2022).
Claim 1. Altium_2022 teaches A method for performing an automated review and analysis on a three- dimensional design (page 9, par 1: ”Design Rule Checking (DRC) is a powerful automated feature that checks both the logical and physical integrity of a design. Checks are made against any or all enabled Design Rules and can be made online in real-time as you design or as a batch process, with results listed in the software's Messages panel and a (optional) generated report.”), the method comprising: initiating, by a processor (page 198, par 1: “System Requirements for Running Altium Designer: Ensure that your computer/server meets the system requirements detailed below, prior to installing Altium software. Altium Designer: Below are the recommended and minimum system requirements to install and run Altium Designer. Recommended System Requirements: Windows 11 (64-bit only) or Windows 10 (64-bit only). Intel® Core™ i7 processor or equivalent, 16GB RAM, 10GB hard disk space (Install + User Files), SSD, …”) of a design development and review system, a review of a plurality of three-dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) files defining the three-dimensional design” (page 26, Fig. 1: “The Design Rule Checker dialog” shows a button “Run Design Run check” allowing a user to initiate a review of the design on the design rule checking.) collecting, by the processor of the design development and review system, data related to the three-dimensional design” (page 265, par 3: "ALTIUM CONCORD PRO®: A unified data management and 3D PCB model integration platform that integrates with Altium Designer® and other mechanical design tools." page 265, par 7: "You shouldn’t have to search component distributors or manufacturers for updated component models, and you shouldn’t have to manually rebuild and recompile design data every time updates are made available. Your PCB design software should include tools updates to CAD models and PCB footprints in your component libraries. You can take full advantage of these capabilities when your design software integrates directly with your favorite 3D CAD software. Altium Concord Pro is the only platform that integrates with Altium Designer, providing a new level of PCB design unification and streamlined 3D data management."); “performing, by the processor of the design development and review system, a pre-processing on the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design” (page 272, par 2: “The recommended way to create a board shape is to use a contour import from MCAD systems. This shape must be created earlier and uploaded from your favorite CAD system in DXF or DWG format.” page 272, par 4: “Select File > Import > DXF/DWG from the main menus. Select the previously downloaded DXF file in the File Explorer window that opens then click Open. The Import from AutoCAD dialog will open.” Page 273, par 2: “After a successful import, a notification dialog opens stating the import is complete. Click OK to close it. Look at your PCB. A new imported contour with the form of the future PCB has appeared.” The imported contour is essential for 3D design. page 277, par 1: “A 3D body is a primitive design object that is used as a container into which a standard-format generic 3D model, including STEP, SolidWorks and Parasolid format models, can be imported to represent the three-dimensional shape of the physical component that is mounted on the assembled PCB. The actual 3D shape is displayed when the editor is switched to 3D display mode (click View » 3D Layout Mode or press the 3 shortcut).” page 278, par 1: “a 3D Body object also can be used for placing extruded polygon, cylindrical and spherical 3D Body shapes either in the PCB editor or into a PCB library component footprint.” Page 293, par 2: “To manage the requirement for each design tool to be able to use native components, CoDesigner supports linking between the MCAD and ECAD components. The links are defined in the Workspace, which acts as a bridge between the ECAD and domains. CoDesigner uses these settings to establish MCAD-to-ECAD and ECAD-to-MCAD component links, so that the source model/component can be replaced by a native model/component in the target domain, when the board is Pulled.” The above describes the general pre-processing 3D design flow for Altium Designer.); “performing, by the processor of the design development and review system, a validation of the three-dimensional design based on a plurality of pre-defined design rules and the pre-processing of the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files” (page 129, par 4: “This command (DesignRuleCheck) is accessed from the PCB Editor by choosing the Tools » Design Rule Check command from the main menus” page 129, par 5: “After launching the command, the Design Rule Checker dialog will open. In the folder-tree pane on the left side of the dialog, each of the design rule categories, whose rule types can be checked, are listed under the Rules To Check folder. Click on a category to list all associated design rule types in the main editing window of the dialog. Click on the root folder to list all design rule types across all categories. Use the dialog to enable/disable Online and/or Batch Mode checking for each rule type you wish to check.” page 26, Fig. 1: “The Design Rule Checker dialog” shows a button “Run Design Run check” allowing a user to initiate a review of the design on the design rule checking. “).; “and generating, by the processor of the design development and review system, an analysis report based on results of performing the validation of the three-dimensional design” (page 129, par 6: “When setting up a batch-mode DRC, various additional options can be defined by clicking on the Report Options folder in the folder-tree pane of the dialog. Two key options are: Create Report File - enable this option to generate a DRC report. Create Violations - enable this option to have violations highlighted in the workspace in accordance with defined violation display settings. This option is also required to have violations appear listed in the Violations region of the PCB Rules And Violations panel. A batch-mode DRC is initiated by clicking the Run Design Rule Check button at the bottom-left of the dialog. After the check has completed, all violations are listed as messages in the Messages panel. If you opted to do so, a DRC report will be created and is automatically opened (if configured to do so) as the active document in the main design window. The report lists each rule that was tested as specified in the Design Rule Checker dialog. Rules that are not present in the design are not tested.”).
Claim 2. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 1. Altium_2022 also teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein initiating the review of the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files comprises: determining a review type for the automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design” (page 122, par 3: “You can also connect to your Altium 365 Workspace from the Open Project and Create Project dialogs, when wanting to open an existing project, or create a new project, respectively.” page 169, par 1: “The Create Project dialog is used to create a new project. Every design starts with a project file that stores project-level settings, such as links to each of the design documents within that project. As well as creating the new project in your connected Workspace, this dialog supports adding the new project to external version control or creating the new project file on the hard drive.” Altium_2022 discloses that a user may either open an existing project or create a new project through the Open Project and Create Project dialog box. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have understood the selection between opening an existing project and creating a new project to constitute a determination of the type of review operation to be performed.); “and in response to determining the review type for the automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design is a new review and analysis, creating a new analysis job and opening the new analysis job in a three-dimensional CAD application” (Altium_2022 teaches when the new-project option is selected, the development and review system can create a new project and open the project within the CAD Workspace. Through the DRC dialog box, a user can start a new analysis job. This process of creating a new project and then a new analysis job corresponds to the claimed new analysis job, and opening the project within the Altium CAD Workspace corresponds to opening the new analysis job in a three-dimensional CAD application.).
Claim 9. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 1. Altium_2022 also teaches “wherein performing the validation of the three- dimensional design based on the plurality of pre-defined design rules and the pre-processing of the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files further comprises: selecting, from a plurality of predefined checklists, an analysis checklist for the validation of the three-dimensional design” (page 12, par 1: “Configuration for design rule checking is performed in the Design Rule Checker dialog accessed through the Tools » Design Rule Check command from a PCB document.” page 13, Fig. 1: “The Design Rule Checker dialog showing defaults with certain Online DRC checks disabled to improve PCB Editor performance. Use the associated options to include a design rule type for checking as part of Online DRC and/or Batch DRC.” Altium_2022 discloses presenting multiple categories of design rules and permitting a user to select the rule types to be checked during design validation. The selected rule categories and rule types to be checked during design validation. The selected rule categories and rule types correspond to the claimed analysis checklist.); Altium_2022 teaches “performing an analysis on the pre-processed CAD files based on the selected analysis checklist” (page 129, par 6: “When setting up a batch-mode DRC, various additional options can be defined by clicking on the Report Options folder in the folder-tree pane of the dialog. Two key options are: Create Report File - enable this option to generate a DRC report. Create Violations - enable this option to have violations highlighted in the workspace in accordance with defined violation display settings. This option is also required to have violations appear listed in the Violations region of the PCB Rules And Violations panel. A batch-mode DRC is initiated by clicking the Run Design Rule Check button at the bottom-left of the dialog. After the check has completed, all violations are listed as messages in the Messages panel. If you opted to do so, a DRC report will be created and is automatically opened (if configured to do so) as the active document in the main design window. The report lists each rule that was tested as specified in the Design Rule Checker dialog. Rules that are not present in the design are not tested.”); Altium_2022 does not explicitly teach “performing an ad hoc check on the pre-processed CAD files”, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the development and review system allows a user to initiate a manual or on-demand rule check in addition to the automated rule checking because manual validation allows the user having more controls over the review process. Altium_2022 further teaches “performing an automation process check on the pre-processed CAD files based on the plurality of pre-defined design rules” (page 9, par 1: “Design Rule Checking (DRC) is a powerful automated feature that checks both the logical and physical integrity of a design. Checks are made against any or all enabled Design Rules and can be made online in real-time as you design or as a batch process, with results listed in the software's Messages panel and a (optional) generated report.”); Altium_2022 teaches “performing one or more additional rule checks on the pre-processed CAD files” (page 12, par 1: “Configuration for design rule checking is performed in the Design Rule Checker dialog accessed through the Tools » Design Rule Check command from a PCB document.” The development and review system allows a user to configure the design rule checking and re-run the analysis.); Altium_2022 teaches “and exporting the set of results for the validation of the three-dimensional design” (page 17, par 3: “Enabling the Create Report File option in the Design Rule Checker dialog will generate a DRC report upon execution of a Batch DRC. Options available on the PCB Editor - Reports page of the Preferences dialog allow specification of report format, and whether the report is automatically displayed after generation.”).
Claim 11. The limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Altium_2022 teaches the further limitations of “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform an automated review and analysis on a three-dimensional design by:” (page 198, par 1: “System Requirements for Running Altium Designer: Ensure that your computer/server meets the system requirements detailed below, prior to installing Altium software. Altium Designer: Below are the recommended and minimum system requirements to install and run Altium Designer. Recommended System Requirements: Windows 11 (64-bit only) or Windows 10 (64-bit only). Intel® Core™ i7 processor or equivalent, 16GB RAM, 10GB hard disk space (Install + User Files), SSD, …”).
Claim 15. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 11. The additional limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as those of claim 9, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 9.
Claim 17. The limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Altium_2022 teaches the further limitations of “A non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising a set of instructions which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform an automated review and analysis on a three-dimensional design by:” (page 198, par 1: “System Requirements for Running Altium Designer: Ensure that your computer/server meets the system requirements detailed below, prior to installing Altium software. Altium Designer: Below are the recommended and minimum system requirements to install and run Altium Designer. Recommended System Requirements: Windows 11 (64-bit only) or Windows 10 (64-bit only). Intel® Core™ i7 processor or equivalent, 16GB RAM, 10GB hard disk space (Install + User Files), SSD, …”).
Claim 19. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 17. The additional limitations of claim 19 are substantially the same as those of claim 9, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 9.
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.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altium_2022 (Altium Designer Documentation version 22, 2022) in view of SVN_2011 (Version Control with Subversion For Subversion 1.7, Ben Collins-Sussman, Brian W. Fitzpatrick, Michael Pilato, 2011.
Claim 3, Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Altium_2022 also teaches “further comprising in response to determining the review type for the automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design is a copy of a previous automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design, opening the duplicate analysis job in the three-dimensional CAD application”. Altium_2022 discloses that a user may open an existing project through the Open Project and Create Project dialog box. Before the effective filing date A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the selection that opening an existing project constitute opening a copy of a previous design along with its automated review and analysis. Altium_2022 does not expressly teach creating a duplicate analysis job based on the previous automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design.
SVN_2011, however, teaches “creating a duplicate analysis job based on the previous automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design” (page 18, par 1: “Most of the time, you will start using a Subversion repository by performing a checkout of your project. Checking out a directory from a repository creates a working copy of that directory on your local machine. Unless otherwise specified, this copy contains the youngest (that is, most recently created or modified) versions of the directory and its children found in the Subversion repository:“).
In addition, Altium_2022 allows the use of external version control. page 174, par 1: “Altium Designer supports the Subversion (SVN) and Git version control systems (VCS). Because it has internal support for these systems, it provides access to the common SVN/Git file handling commands such as Commit, Update, etc. within the development and analysis system, along with additional Subversion capabilities such as the ability to create a SVN repository.” Therefore, before the effective filling date it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply such version-control functionality stated in SVN_2011 to the review process of Altium_2022 in order to preserve prior review information, and perform the analysis on a copied review instance without modifying the original review.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altium_2022 (Altium Designer Documentation version 22, 2022) in view of SVN_2011 (Version Control with Subversion For Subversion 1.7, Ben Collins-Sussman, Brian W. Fitzpatrick, Michael Pilato, 2011) in view of TortoiseMerge_2022 (TortoiseMerge - A diff/merge tool for Windows Version 1.14.5, Stefan Küng, Lübbe Onken, Simon Large, 2022).
Claim 4, Altium_2022 in view of SVN_2011 teaches all the limitation of claims 3. Altium_2022 also teaches “further comprising in response to determining the review type for the automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design is a comparison of two previous automated reviews and analyses on the three-dimensional design” (page 174, par 1: “Altium Designer supports the Subversion (SVN) and Git version control systems (VCS). Because it has internal support for these systems, it provides access to the common SVN/Git file handling commands such as Commit, Update, etc. within the development and analysis system, along with additional Subversion capabilities such as the ability to create a SVN repository. This integrates with the schematic and PCB comparison features, making it easy to quickly compare and identify differences between two revisions of a schematic or PCB document, and for PCB designs, resolving concurrent revision conflicts. The basic approach to working with a Version Control System (VCS) is to access a copy of the project files that you want to work on from a repository, edit the files in Altium Designer and then ‘commit’ the modified files back to the repository. The interaction with the repository is through a version control system interface, which Altium Designer has built into its Storage Manager panel and Projects panel. The key to how a version control system works is that it monitors the status of files that have been accessed from the repository, via a working folder, and therefore tracks what revision is being worked on and if it has been modified. Although the outcome is the same, the repository and working file arrangements differ between types of version control systems – Git or SVN.”).
But Altium_2022 in view of SVN_2011 does not explicit teach performing a side-by-side comparison of results from the two previous automated reviews and analysis on the three-dimensional design.
TortoiseMerge_2022, however, teaches “performing a side-by-side comparison of results from the two previous automated reviews and analyses on the three-dimensional design” (page 3, par 1: “TortoiseMerge has several different uses: Viewing the difference between two files and merging changes into one of them, or removing unwanted changes.”. page 3, par 2: “Viewing and Merging Differences: In this mode you are comparing two files. The file in the left pane is considered to be the original file (sometimes referred to as Theirs, and the file in the right pane is the modified file (sometimes referred to as Mine)”).
Before the effective filing date It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed invention to have modified Altium_2022 to incorporate the teachings of SVN_2011 to retrieve the two previous automated reviews and analysis on the three-dimensional design, and further incorporate the teaching of TortoiseMerge_2022 to perform a side-by-side comparison of the two previous automated reviews and analysis on the three-dimensional design for the benefit of enabling a user to more efficiently identify changes, resolved issues, newly introduced issues, or regressions between the corresponding analyzed designs.
Claim 5. Alitum_2022 in view of SVN_2011 in view of TortoiseMerge_2022 teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Altium_2022 teaches “wherein collecting the data related to the three- dimensional design further comprises, in response to determining the review type for the automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design is a new review and analysis: reading a set of analysis data for the new analysis job” (page 129, par 4: “This command (DesignRuleCheck) is accessed from the PCB Editor by choosing the Tools » Design Rule Check command from the main menus” page 129, par 5: “After launching the command, the Design Rule Checker dialog will open. In the folder-tree pane on the left side of the dialog, each of the design rule categories, whose rule types can be checked, are listed under the Rules To Check folder. Click on a category to list all associated design rule types in the main editing window of the dialog. Click on the root folder to list all design rule types across all categories. Use the dialog to enable/disable Online and/or Batch Mode checking for each rule type you wish to check.” A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have understood that the development and review system read the rule definitions and associated analysis parameters prior to performing the design review constitutes reading a set of analysis data for the new analysis job.). Altium_2022 also teaches “verifying a three-dimensional unit of measurement for the new analysis job” (page 312, par 3: “In the PCB editor, detail such as dimensions, and fabrication and assembly instructions are added on mechanical layers.“ page 26, Fig 1. Shows the design rule checker has a list of dimension related checks, such as height, hole size, length, etc. Altium_2022 utilizes dimensional information associated with PCB designs and performs design validation based on geometric and spatial characteristics of the design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the design rule constraints in either unit of Imperial (mils) or Metric (mm). The development and review system calculates all dimensions, instantly catching formatting or mathematical scale violations during layout routing.).
Claim 6. Alitum_2022 in view of SVN_2011 in view of TortoiseMerge_2022 teaches all the limitations of claim 5. In addition, Alitum_2022 teaches “wherein collecting the data related to the three- dimensional design further comprises, in response to determining the review type for the automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design is a copy of a previous automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design, reading a set of analysis data for the previous automated review and analysis” (page 16, par 3: “Various additional options are available when running a Batch DRC, including the ability to generate a report file. These options are accessed by clicking on the Report Options folder in the folder-tree pane of the dialog.” page 16, par 4: “Create Report File - enable this option to generate a DRC report. “ page 17, par 2: “If you opted to do so, a DRC report will be created and automatically opened (if configured to do so) as the active document in the main design window. The report lists each rule that was tested as specified in the Design Rule Checker dialog. Rules that are not present in the design are not tested.” page 9, par 6: “DRC Validation in an Output Job: Altium Designer provides the ability to define and run a DRC validation report as part of an Output Job Configuration file (*.OutJob).” Altium_2022 teaches launching a design rule checking operation and presenting design-rule categories, rule types, and associated checking parameters for use during the analysis process. Altium_2022 further teaches the ability to define and run a DRC validation report as part of an Output Job Configuration file. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the development and review system read a set of analysis data, namely the previous validation report as well as the rule definitions and associated analysis parameters prior to performing the design review.).
Claim 7. Alitum_2022 in view of SVN_2011 in view of TortoiseMerge_2022 teaches all the limitations of claim 5. In addition, Alitum_2022 teaches “wherein collecting the data related to the three- dimensional design further comprises, in response to determining the review type for the automated review and analysis on the three-dimensional design is a comparison of two previous automated reviews and analyses on the three-dimensional design, reading a set of analysis data for the previous automated reviews and analyses” (page 16, par 3: “Various additional options are available when running a Batch DRC, including the ability to generate a report file. These options are accessed by clicking on the Report Options folder in the folder-tree pane of the dialog.” page 16, par 4: “Create Report File - enable this option to generate a DRC report.“ page 17, par 2: “If you opted to do so, a DRC report will be created and automatically opened (if configured to do so) as the active document in the main design window. The report lists each rule that was tested as specified in the Design Rule Checker dialog. Rules that are not present in the design are not tested.” page 9, par 6: “DRC Validation in an Output Job: Altium Designer provides the ability to define and run a DRC validation report as part of an Output Job Configuration file (*.OutJob).” Altium_2022 teaches launching a design rule checking operation and presenting design-rule categories, rule types, and associated checking parameters for use during the analysis process. Altium_2022 further teaches the ability to define and run a DRC validation report as part of an Output Job Configuration file. Before the effective filing date a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that retrieving previously generated analysis information constitutes reading a set of analysis data. To the extend the claim is interpreted as requiring analysis data of more than one previous review, it would have been obvious to repeat the same data retrieval operation for each selected review.).
Claim 12. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 11. The additional limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as those of claims 2, 3, and 4, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2, 3, and 4.
Claim 13. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 12. The limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as those of claims 5, 6, and 7, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 5, 6, and 7.
Claims 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altium_2022 (Altium Designer Documentation version 22, 2022) in view of Autodesk_2019 (Model Tree, Autodesk, 2019) in view of Ultra_Librarian_2020 (IPC Naming Conventions and the Quest for Staying on Top of Standards, Ultra Librarian, 2020).
Claim 8. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations of claim 1. However, Altium_2022 does not teach “wherein performing the pre-processing on the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design comprises: analyzing a model tree for the three-dimensional design”.
Autodesk_2019, however, teaches “wherein performing the pre-processing on the plurality of three-dimensional CAD files and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design comprises: analyzing a model tree for the three-dimensional design” (page 1, par 1: “The Model Tree provides an easy way to navigate, select and change the visibility of models and their objects in a project with multiple models and various states of visibility. The Model Tree displays all models and objects visible in the Project, and more importantly, the models and objects that are not currently visible. Objects in the Model Tree are organized by Category Name, Family Name, and Type Name. Instances are not displayed in the model tree, but can be selected from the Inventory or Viewer.” page 1, par 2: “To Select Objects and Change Visibility using the Model Tree: 1. Select an object or multiple objects from the Model Tree check boxes. Notice the Selection Bar appears with a quantity summary of the objects selected (or item count for multi-category selection), and your selection displays in both the Model Inventory (highlighted in yellow) and the Model Viewer (highlighted in blue). 2. Click on Change Visibility in the Selection Bar. 3. Choose either Hide Selection or Hide Others from the Selection Bar to take action on the items selected. Unhide Selection will only be active if the objects selected are currently hidden (indicated by a strikethrough). NOTE: While your objects are selected in the model tree, choose Inspect from the Selection Bar to open the Properties Panel.”);
Altium_2022 and Autodesk_2019 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Before the effective filling date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Altium_2022 and Autodesk_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been that Altium_2022 teaches obtaining data regarding to the PCB design. Autodesk_2019 teaches analyzing the design data using model tree. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the design data taught by Altium_2022 with analyzing a model tree based on the design data taught by Autodesk_2019 for the benefit of organizing model objects according to categories and types.
Altium_2022 in view of Autodesk_2019 does not teach “standardizing part naming for a plurality of parts in the three-dimensional design, wherein the part naming for the plurality of parts is standardized based on a part type for each part of the plurality of parts; standardizing assembly naming for a plurality of assemblies in the three-dimensional design, wherein the assembly naming for the plurality of assemblies is standardized based on an assembly type for each assembly of the plurality of assemblies”
Ultra_Librarian_2020, however, teaches “standardizing part naming for a plurality of parts in the three-dimensional design, wherein the part naming for the plurality of parts is standardized based on a part type for each part of the plurality of parts; standardizing assembly naming for a plurality of assemblies in the three-dimensional design, wherein the assembly naming for the plurality of assemblies is standardized based on an assembly type for each assembly of the plurality of assemblies” (page 2, par 1: “Two IPC Naming Conventions: IPC standards cover every facet of electronics design and fabrication, including materials, assembly, components, and layout. IPC naming convention standards are a specific subset of these standards, describing how certain types of electronic components should be named. There are two major naming standards that apply to PCBs: IPC-7351B: Generic Requirements for Surface Mount Design and Land Pattern Standard. IPC-7251: Generic Requirements for Through-Hole Design and Land Pattern Standard. Many PCB design tools are built with component creation tools, which help you comply with the most recent revisions of the IPC standards. Some design platforms include built-in component generators that will create a compliant PCB footprint as well as a compliant name under IPC 7351B or IPC-7251. Of these two naming conventions, IPC-7251 is more complex, since it refers to other established IPC standards to determine part of its naming scheme.”);
Altium_2022 and Autodesk_2019 and Ultra_Librarian_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Before the effective filing data it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Altium_2022 and Ultra_Librarian_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Altium_2022 teaches obtaining data including parts and assembly information regarding to the PCB design. Ultra_Librarian_2020 teaches that parts and assemblies should use hierarchical, descriptive naming conventions that incorporate key parameters (like package type, pin count, and manufacturer) rather than ambiguity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the design data taught by Altium_2022 with the naming conventions taught by Ultra_Librarian_2020 for the benefit of preventing manufacturing error and streamlining supply chain management.
Altium_2022 teaches “assigning one or more [attributes (parameters) or attributes (parameters) automatically generated, derived, or calculated] to each of one or more features of the three-dimensional design of one or more parts of the three-dimensional design based on recognition of the one or more features or one or more parts; assigning one or more [user-defined or user-customized attributes (parameters)] to the three-dimensional design” (page 211, par 1: “Component parameters define features of electronic parts necessary to meet form, fit, and function within the design for use across the enterprise.” page 212, par 1: “PCB Component parameters are simply text strings in EDA software that describe characteristics. Characteristics such as name, value, description, manufacturer, and mounting technology. Any information found on a component datasheet may be represented in software tooling using a text string. Tying that text string to a component collects, and stores, information into one part. That text string, then, belongs to, and moves, with the part throughout the process. When editing the object with the default dialog box method, the user updated values or function will remain with that element so long as it remains a part of the design file.” page 217, par 1: “Altium Designer Properties Panel Defines PCB Component Parameters: Altium Designer has crafted an elegant method for collecting, accessing, and adding component object type and features within their dedicated default Parameters Menu dialog box. The Parameters Menu is found under its respective tab within the Properties Panel. The Properties Panel is accessed when in either the Schematic Capture or the Schematic Library Editors. This is where component parameters such as name, value, vendor, footprint, description, and more can be found or added. Icons for displaying or locking each parameter are easily selected alongside the name and value of each parameter, making it easy to use the respective parameter as needed to detail your design to others.”).
Altium_2022 teaches “defining an assembly stack-up for the three-dimensional design” (page 226, par 5: “The Layer Stack Manager provides an elegant tool for PCB design guidelines and setting layer characteristics such as thickness. It is a visual tool set up as a table with direct access for Printed Circuit Board editing. Columns for the material definition of copper, prepreg, and core along with surface materials are specified here. The realization of high-speed design requirements that employ designed thicknesses is inserted here along with a definition of dielectric material.”);
Altium_2022 teaches “assigning one or more to one or more features of one or more parts;” (page 211, par 1: “Component parameters define features of electronic parts necessary to meet form, fit, and function within the design for use across the enterprise.” page 212, par 2: “PCB Component parameters are simply text strings in EDA software that describe characteristics. Characteristics such as name, value, description, manufacturer, and mounting technology. Any information found on a component datasheet may be represented in software tooling using a text string. Tying that text string to a component collects, and stores, information into one part. That text string, then, belongs to, and moves, with the part throughout the process. When editing the object with the default dialog box method, the user updated values or function will remain with that element so long as it remains a part of the design file.” page 217, par 1: “Altium Designer Properties Panel Defines PCB Component Parameters: Altium Designer has crafted an elegant method for collecting, accessing, and adding component object type and features within their dedicated default Parameters Menu dialog box. The Parameters Menu is found under its respective tab within the Properties Panel. The Properties Panel is accessed when in either the Schematic Capture or the Schematic Library Editors. This is where component parameters such as name, value, vendor, footprint, description, and more can be found or added. Icons for displaying or locking each parameter are easily selected alongside the name and value of each parameter, making it easy to use the respective parameter as needed to detail your design to others.”);
In PCB design software, part attributes and parameters are functionally the same thing: both represent the metadata or data fields assigned to an electronic component (like a resistor or capacitor). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in the context of the present application, “automatic attributes” are reasonably interpreted as predefined attributes (parameters) or attributes (parameters) automatically generated, derived, or calculated by the design development and review system, whereas “additional attributes” are reasonably interpreted as user-defined or user-customized attributes (parameters) added to the three-dimensional design.
Altium_2022 render obvious the limitation “defining a plurality of [discrete stages] for assembly of the three-dimensional design” (page 236, par 5: “A key collaboration feature of Altium Designer is the support for formalized workflows based on configurable Process Definitions. The Workspace includes a range of preconfigured Process Definitions that provide defined sequences of event steps (Process Workflows) for tasks such as design reviews and project creation. Process Definitions are managed, edited and created in the Workspace, and their workflows can be invoked from both the Workspace and Altium Designer. The Process Workflows interact with users through Process Forms and flow diagrams, both of which are configured (or created) in the Workspace. A Workflow diagram and its associated Forms can capture: Who is involved (e.g. admin, design engineer, anyone from the librarian group, etc.). What actions need to be taken, and in which order. What data needs to be provided (name, description, attachments, etc.). What are the decision points (e.g. approvals, assignments, etc.)”). Specifically, Altium_2022 teaches that Process Definitions provide “defined sequences of event steps (Process Workflows),” that Process Workflows are configured through Process Forms and workflow diagrams, and that the workflow defines the participants, actions to be performed, the order in which the actions are performed, required data, and decision points within the process. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to organize the design-development and assembly process into defined workflow stages because doing so improves traceability, coordination, and management of the PCB design and development process. Accordingly, defining the workflow stages taught by Altium_2022 render obvious the claimed defining of plurality of process stations.);
Altium_2022 renders obvious the limitation “defining a [a defined grouping or portion of a discrete stage] for assembly of the three-dimensional design based on the plurality of ” (page 236, par 5: “A key collaboration feature of Altium Designer is the support for formalized workflows based on configurable Process Definitions. The Workspace includes a range of preconfigured Process Definitions that provide defined sequences of event steps (Process Workflows) for tasks such as design reviews and project creation. Process Definitions are managed, edited and created in the Workspace, and their workflows can be invoked from both the Workspace and Altium Designer. The Process Workflows interact with users through Process Forms and flow diagrams, both of which are configured (or created) in the Workspace. A Workflow diagram and its associated Forms can capture: Who is involved (e.g. admin, design engineer, anyone from the librarian group, etc.). What actions need to be taken, and in which order. What data needs to be provided (name, description, attachments, etc.). What are the decision points (e.g. approvals, assignments, etc.)” Altium_2022 teaches configurable Process Definitions and Process Workflows that provide defined sequences of event steps for engineering activities, including design reviews and project creation. Specifically, Altium_2022 teaches that Process Definitions provide “defined sequences of event steps (Process Workflows),” that Process Workflows are configured through Process Forms and workflow diagrams, and that the workflow defines the participants, actions to be performed, the order in which the actions are performed, required data, and decision points within the process. Altium_2022 therefore teaches defining multiple discrete stages within a structured PCB design workflow. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to organize related workflow stages into a defined process area, because workflow-management systems routinely group related stages into organized portions of an engineering process to improve process traceability, coordination, task management of the design for the review and manufactory process.)
The specification does not define the terms “process station” or “process area,” nor does it limit either term to a physical manufacturing workstation or factory floor location. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner interprets a “process station” as a discrete stage within a defined engineering or assembly process, and a “process area” as a defined grouping or portion of such process stages within an overall process.
Claim 10. Altium_2022 in view of Autodesk_2019 in view of Ultra_Librarian_2020 teaches all limitations of Claim 8. Altium_2022 teaches “wherein generating the analysis report based on results of performing the validation of the three-dimensional design further comprises: importing the set of results for the validation of the three-dimensional design; creating a report job file for the analysis report based on the imported set of results for the validation of the three-dimensional design;” (page 27, par 8: “Clicking on the Report Options folder loads the right-hand side of the dialog with additional options that are available when running a Batch DRC. DRC Report Options: Create Report File – enable this option to have a report generated after running a Batch DRC for the board.” page 28, par 2: “The report is in HTML format and will be named Design Rule Check - <PCBDocumentName>.html. It will be automatically opened as the active document after the Batch DRC process has been completed.” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the validation results produced by the Batch DRC are provided as input to the report-generation process, i.e., imported into that process, before creation of the report file. Therefore, Altium_2022 teaches generating an analysis report, and generates a report file after the Batch DRC process has completed. Accordingly, Altium_2022 teaches importing the set of validation results and creating a report file for the analysis report based on those validation results.)
Alitum_2022 teaches “adding one or more design issues to the report job file based on the imported set of results for the validation of the three-dimensional design” (page 9, par 6: “DRC Validation in an Output Job: Altium Designer provides the ability to define and run a DRC validation report as part of an Output Job Configuration file (*.OutJob). With an OutJob file open as the active document, the report is available from the Validation Outputs grouping of outputs. To add a report, click the [Add New Validation Output] control and choose the Design Rules Check entry and select the PCB document as the source.” page 16, par 5: “Create Violations – enable this option to have violations highlighted in the design space in accordance with defined violation display settings. This option is also required to have violations appear listed in the Violations region of the PCB Rules And Violations panel. Management of how DRC violations are displayed – using custom violation graphics and/or a defined violation overlay – is performed on the PCB Editor – DRC Violations Display page of the Preferences dialog.” Altium_2022 teaches generating an analysis report based on the results of validating the PCB design. Altium_2022 further teaches that the DRC validation produces validation results identifying design rule violations and that those results are listed in the generated report. Accordingly, Altium_2022 teaches adding design issues to the report job file.);
Altium_2022 teaches “reading a set of values for the plurality of pre-defined design rules” (page 12, par 1: “Configuring the DRC: Configuration for design rule checking is performed in the Design Rule Checker dialog accessed through the Tools » Design Rule Check command from a PCB document. Options and Controls of the Design Rule Checker Dialog. The dialog's functionality is essentially divided into two areas: Configuration of options relating to a Batch DRC. Configuration of which rules to check, and whether those rules should be checked as part of the Online and/or Batch DRC.” The rules in the dialog box are pre-defined.);
Altium_2022 teaches “selecting a report design from a plurality of pre-defined report designs” (page 17, par 2: “DRC Reports: Enabling the Create Report File option in the Design Rule Checker dialog will generate a DRC report upon execution of a Batch DRC. Options available on the PCB Editor - Reports page of the Preferences dialog allow specification of report format, and whether the report is automatically displayed after generation. Generate a DRC report as part of the Batch DRC process. Supported formats are: TXT - generates the file Design Rule Check - <PCBDocumentName>.drc. HTML - generates the file Design Rule Check - <PCBDocumentName>.html. XML - generates the file <PCBDocumentName>.xml.” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that selecting a predefined report configuration or report format constitutes selecting a report design from a plurality of predefined report designs because each predefined report configuration specifies how the validation results are organized and presented in the generated report.);
Altium_2022 renders obvious “generating the analysis report from the report job file and the set of values for the plurality of pre-defined design rules using the selected report design, and exporting the generated analysis report” (page 9, par 6: “DRC Validation in an Output Job: Altium Designer provides the ability to define and run a DRC validation report as part of an Output Job Configuration file (*.OutJob). With an OutJob file open as the active document, the report is available from the Validation Outputs grouping of outputs. To add a report, click the [Add New Validation Output] control and choose the Design Rules Check entry and select the PCB document as the source.” page 17, par 2: “DRC Reports: Enabling the Create Report File option in the Design Rule Checker dialog will generate a DRC report upon execution of a Batch DRC. Options available on the PCB Editor - Reports page of the Preferences dialog allow specification of report format, and whether the report is automatically displayed after generation. Generate a DRC report as part of the Batch DRC process. Supported formats are: TXT - generates the file Design Rule Check - <PCBDocumentName>.drc. HTML - generates the file Design Rule Check - <PCBDocumentName>.html. XML - generates the file <PCBDocumentName>.xml.” Altium_2022 teaches generating an analysis report using an Output Job Configuration (*.OutJob). Specifically, Altium_2022 teaches defining a Design Rule Check (DRC) validation report as a validation output within the Output Job Configuration file, wherein the DRC validation is performed using the enabled design rule settings defined in the Design Rule Checker dialog. Upon completion of the validation, Altium_2022 generates a Design Rule Check report containing the validation results. Altium_2022 further teaches exporting the generated analysis report by generating and saving the report as an output file in one of several supported formats, including TXT, HTML, or XML.).
Claim 14. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 11. The additional limitations of claim 14 are substantially the same as those of claim 8, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 8.
Claim 16. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 15. The additional limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as those of claim 10, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 10.
Claim 18. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 17. The additional limitations of claim 18 are substantially the same as those of claim 8, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 8.
Claim 20. Altium_2022 teaches all the limitations in claim 19. The additional limitations of claim 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 10, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANG LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am to 5pm ET.
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.
/Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights