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 2, line 2, replace “print” with “printing”. Line 6, replace “time consuming” with “time-consuming”.
In paragraph 9, line 3, replace “label by” with “label with”.
In paragraph 10, line 8, replace “scopes” with “scope”. Line 11, replace “detail” with “details”.
In paragraph 11, line 4, insert a comma after “(WAN)”. Line 5, replace “in to” with “into”.
In paragraph 12, line 3, replace “is capable of” with “are capable of”.
In paragraph 15, line 3, insert “the” before “performance”. Line 4, insert “the” before “performance”.
In paragraph 16, line 2, replace “participate” with “participates”. Line 6, replace “include” with “includes”.
In paragraph 17, line 1, replace “computer readable” with “computer-readable”. Line 4, replace “computer readable” with “computer-readable”.
In paragraph 20, Line 5, replace “computer readable” with “computer-readable”.
In paragraph 21, line 2, replace “special purpose” with “special-purpose”. Line 11, replace “Internet enabled” with “Internet-enabled”.
In paragraph 24, line 2, insert an “a” before “programmed”. Line 3, replace “a special purpose computer” with “a special-purpose computer”. Line 5, insert an “a” before “program”, insert an “a” before “personal computer”.
In paragraph 27, line 7, replace “general purpose” with “general-purpose”.
In paragraph 29, line 9, remove “operations”.
In paragraph 30, line 1, replace “and or/application” with “and/or application”. Line 4, replace “general purpose” with “general-purpose”.
In paragraph 38, Line 4, replace “user readable” with “user-readable”. Line 9, insert an “a” before “pre-defined”. Line 10, Appendix A is missing from the submitted docket.
In paragraph 39, line 2, insert an “an” before “established”, and replace “perform” with “performing”. Line 3, replace “part” with “parts”, and replace “user readable” with “user-readable”. Line 4, insert an “a” before “dynamic”. Line 5, insert an “the” before “defined automation process”. Line 6, insert a “the” before “use”, insert a “a” before “dynamic, and replace “part” with “parts”. Line 7, replace “assembly" with “assemblies”.
In paragraph 40, line 6, insert an “is” after “As”.
In paragraph 42, line 1, replace “on” with “of”. Line 13, insert a “the” before “results”.
In paragraph 45, line 5, insert a “was” after “report”, and insert a “the” before “results”.
In paragraph 50, Line 4, replace “assemble” with “assembly”.
In paragraph 51, line 3, replace “configurations embodiments” with “configurations”.
In paragraph 53, line 1, replace “description” with “descriptions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “an assembly methods” should read “an assembly method”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 “an active component list for the three-dimensional design,”, and later recites “the active component list comprises a Bill Of Materials (BOM)”. But neither the claim nor the specification provides the metes and bounds for determining what constitutes an “active” component list, and how “active” component list differs from a conventional component list. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised the scope of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Claim 9 recites “an active component list for the three-dimensional design,”, and later recites “the active component list comprises a Bill Of Materials (BOM)”. But neither the claim nor the specification provides the metes and bounds for determining what constitutes an “active” component list, and how “active” component list differs from a conventional component list. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised the scope of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Claim 15 recites “an active component list for the three-dimensional design,”, and later recites “the active component list comprises a Bill Of Materials (BOM)”. But neither the claim nor the specification provides the metes and bounds for determining what constitutes an “active” component list, and how “active” component list differs from a conventional component list. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised the scope of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 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. Line 2, "claim 117" does not exist. 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.
The remaining, not specifically mentioned, are rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the base claims.
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. Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A method for performing an automated review and analysis on a three- dimensional design, the method comprising:
collecting, by a processor of the design development and review system, data related to a three-dimensional design;
generating, by the processor of the design development and review system, an active component list for the three-dimensional design, wherein the active component list comprises a Bill Of Materials (BOM) for the three-dimensional design;
performing, by the processor of the design development and review system, an assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design based on the generated active component list and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design; and
generating, by the processor of the design development and review system, an analysis report based on results of executing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design.
These limitations describe the concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis, which constitute mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, or alternatively constitute methods of organizing and evaluating engineering information. An engineer could review design documentation, prepare a component list (BOM), mentally or manually evaluate an assembly sequence, and prepare a report describing the results. Although the claim recites that these operations are performed “by a processor,” merely performing otherwise abstract information processing on a generic computer does not remove the claim from the mental process category. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is directed towards mental process abstract idea.
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 recited in the claim are:
“a processor”;
“a design development and review system”;
“data related to a three-dimensional design”;
“active component list”; and
“analysis report”.
A processor, data related to a three-dimensional design, active component list, and analysis report, 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 application used as a tool in which the abstract is performed and amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer technology. The claim does not improve the functioning of the processor or the design development and review system, nor does it improve another technology or technical field. The claim also does not effect a particular treatment or transformation of an article, implement the abstract idea with a particular machine in a meaningful way, or apply the judicial exception in any other meaningful manner beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a generic computer. The recited assembly simulation is itself performed for purposes of evaluating design information and producing an analysis report. The claim does not recite any specific simulation algorithm, data structure, modeling technique, or technological improvement in simulation technology. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2016.05(f)(2) – “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, including the processor and design development and review system, receiving information, collecting data, processing information, executing software, 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. The ordered combination likewise merely automates a conventional engineering review workflow consisting of collecting design information, preparing a component list, evaluating the design through simulation, and producing a report. Automating these activities using computer as a tool amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea on a computer and does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more.
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:
wherein generating the active component list for the three-dimensional design comprises:
performing an analysis of an assembly methods defined by the collected data related to the three-dimensional design;
generating an initial list of components for the three-dimensional design based on the analysis of the assembly methods;
refining the initial list of components for the three-dimensional design to generate the active component list for the three-dimensional design; and
storing the active component list for the three-dimensional design.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. These additional limitations also recite mental processes, namely analyzing engineering information, generating and refining lists based on that analysis, and organizing the resulting information. These are forms of collecting, evaluating, and organizing information that can practically be performed mentally.
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 analysis of assembly methods, generation of an initial component list, refinement of that list, and storage of the resulting active component list merely further define the abstract information-processing operations recited in claim 1. The claim does not recite any specific algorithm for analyzing assembly methods, any improvement to CAD technology, any improvement to assembly simulation technology, or any other technological improvement. Nor does the claim recite any particular machine or transformation that imposes 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. Analyzing data, generating lists, refining lists, and storing results are pre-solution and post-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 data analysis, list refinery, results storing. The ordered combination therefore amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea using computer as a tool. Accordingly, claim 2 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3.
Claim 3 further recites:
exporting the active component list for the three-dimensional design.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. This additional limitation recites an additional mental process or information management activity, namely outputting or transmitting previously generated engineering information. Exporting data merely communicates or makes available information that has already been generated and does not change the character of the abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The limitation of exporting the active component list does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular export format, a specialized data exchange protocol, an improvement in interoperability between CAD systems, or any technological improvement in computer functionality. Rather, the exporting step merely outputs the generated information for subsequent use.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Exporting data is a post-solution activity. This additional element in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 2, the additional limitation merely automates the workflow of exporting data. The ordered combination therefore amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea using computer as a tool. Accordingly, claim 3 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 further recites:
wherein performing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design comprises:
obtaining one or more three-dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) files for each component of the active component list for the three-dimensional design;
assigning relationships between components of the active component list based on the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and collected data related to the three- dimensional design;
performing an assembly simulation using the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and the assigned relationships between the components of the active component list;
verifying the assembly simulation based on the collected data related to the three- dimensional design; and
generating a set of simulation results for the assembly simulation based on verifying the assembly simulation.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. These additional limitations recite mental processes, including obtaining engineering information, evaluating relationships between components, performing and verifying a simulation, and generating simulation results. These limitations describe collecting, analyzing, and evaluating engineering design information that can be practically performed conceptually by an engineer or with the aid of mathematical calculations, even if a computer performs the operations more efficiently. Accordingly, the additional limitations fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim recites using three-dimensional CAD files during an assembly simulation, the claim merely uses the CAD files as input data for performing the abstract analysis. The claim does not recite an improvement to CAD processing or simulation technology, an improvement to computer functionality, or any other technological improvement. Instead, the claim recites the desired results of obtaining data, assigning relationships, performing a simulation, verifying the simulation, and generating simulation results at a high level of generality. The additional elements therefore merely use generic computer technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Obtaining CAD files, assigning relationships, and generating output constitute pre-solution and post-solution activities. Performing an assembly simulation and verifying the assembly simulation merely recite implementing the abstract idea in an execution environment . But merely using the execution environment does not make an improvement to the execution environment, nor to the design and development environment. Considering the claim as a whole, the ordered combination merely automates the workflow of an engineering design review process using generic computer technologies and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 4 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite 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 further recites:
modifying the assembly simulation using a what-if analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. This additional limitation recites the abstract idea of evaluating alternative scenarios and modifying a simulation based on the evaluation. A “what-if analysis” is a form of analytical reasoning used to assess hypothetical conditions and predict potential outcomes. Such analysis constitutes a mental process, as it can be practically performed in the human mind by considering different assumptions and their corresponding effects.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim specifies that the assembly simulation is modified using a what-if analysis, it does not recite how the what-if analysis is performed, a specific optimization or decision-making algorithm, or an improvement to the operation of a computer. Instead, the claim merely recites the desired result of modifying the simulation based on hypothetical analysis while relying on generic computer implementation.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Performing hypothetical analyses, evaluating alternative scenarios, and modifying simulation parameters are not indicative of a practical application because these elements merely link the use of the judicial exception to the development and review environment. Merely linking the claim to the development and review environment is not indicative of a practical application because the environment is merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6.
Claim 6 further recites:
generating a comparative report for the modified assembly simulation.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. This additional limitation recites the abstract idea of organizing and presenting the results of an analysis. Specifically, generating a comparative report involves comparing simulation results and presenting the comparison in a report. Such activities constitute mental processes, as they involve evaluating information and communicating the results of that evaluation, which can practically be performed in the human mind.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim merely specifies that a comparative report is generated after the modified assembly simulation. It does not recite a specific reporting algorithm, an improvement to report generation technology, or any other technological improvement. Rather, the report generation step merely presents the results of the abstract analytical process using generic computer functionality.
STEP 2B: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Generating reports that compare analytical or simulation results is a post-solution activity. The additional element in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5, the claim merely automates the generation of engineering documentation based on analytical results using generic computer technologies. Accordingly, claim 6 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7.
Claim 7 further recites:
streaming a Virtual Reality (VR) representation of the assembly simulation.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. This additional limitation recites displaying or presenting the results of the assembly simulation in a virtual reality environment. Presenting information, including visualizing or displaying analytical results, is an additional information presentation step associated with the abstract idea recited in claim 1 and does not alter the character of the claim as being directed to collecting, analyzing, and reporting engineering information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim specifies that a VR representation is streamed, the claim does not recite a specific VR rendering technique, an improvement to VR display technology, or any improvement to the functioning of a computer or virtual reality system. Instead, the VR representation merely provides an alternative manner of presenting the results of the assembly simulation using generic virtual reality technology. Consequently, the claim merely applies the judicial exception using a generic technological environment.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Streaming data and displaying graphical representations in a virtual reality environment is a post-solution activity, which amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 4, the additional limitation merely uses generic VR technology to present the results of the abstract engineering analysis and therefore amounts to no more significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 7 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8.
Claim 8 further recites:
exporting the generated set of simulation results.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. This additional limitation recites outputting or communicating the results of the assembly simulation. Exporting simulation results is an information management activity that merely outputs previously generated information for subsequent use. Accordingly, the limitation forms part of the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and communicating engineering information.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific export format, an improved mechanism for transferring simulation data, or any improvement to computer functionality. Rather, the exporting step merely presents the results of the abstract analytical process using generic computer technologies.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Exporting data generated by software applications is post-solution activity. This additional element in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 4, the additional limitation merely performs another generic information-processing operation and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity following the abstract analytical process. Accordingly, claim 8 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites: “A system”.
Claim 9 is directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
collecting data related to a three-dimensional design;
generating an active component list for the three-dimensional design, wherein the active component list comprises a Bill Of Materials (BOM) for the three-dimensional design;
performing an assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design based on the generated active component list and the collected data related to the three- dimensional design; and
generating an analysis report based on results of executing the assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes.
Claim 9 recites a system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that cause the processor to:
collect data related to a three-dimensional design;
generate an active component list comprising a bill of materials (BOM);
perform an assembly simulation based on the generated active component list and the collected design data; and
generate an analysis report based on the simulation results.
These limitations recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and reporting information, including evaluating engineering design information through simulation and generating results. Such activities constitute mental processes, as they can be practically performed in the human, and merely automate engineering analysis using a computer.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements recited are a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor. These elements are generic computer technology performing their ordinary functions of executing instructions, processing data, and storing information. The claim does not recite an improvement to processor operation, an improvement to memory technology, or any other technological improvement. Instead, the processor and memory merely serve as tools for implementing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: No. The claim likewise 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. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim merely automates a conventional engineering review workflow using generic computer technology and therefore does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to a judicial exception and 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 10.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 10 further recites:
wherein generating the active component list for the three- dimensional design comprises:
performing an analysis of an assembly methods defined by the collected data related to the three-dimensional design;
generating an initial list of components for the three-dimensional design based on the analysis of the assembly methods;
refining the initial list of components for the three-dimensional design to generate the active component list for the three-dimensional design; and
storing the active component list for the three-dimensional design.
These additional limitations recite analyzing, organizing, refining, and storing engineering information. Such operations constitute mental processes because they involve evaluating information and organizing the results of that evaluation, activities that can practically be performed in the human mind, although a computer may perform them more efficiently.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm for analyzing assembly methods, an improvement to CAD technology or assembly simulation technology, or an improvement to computer functionality. Rather, the processor merely performs information-processing operations using generic computer technology.
STEP 2B: No. The claim also fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The processor and memory perform their ordinary functions of executing instructions, processing data, generating lists, and storing information. Likewise, analyzing assembly methods, generating and refining component lists, and storing the resulting list are pre-solution and post-solution activities. The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claim 9, these additional limitations merely automate generic engineering analysis and information management without providing an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception and 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 11.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 11 further recites:
wherein performing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design comprises:
obtaining one or more three-dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) files for each component of the active component list for the three-dimensional design;
assigning relationships between components of the active component list based on the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and collected data related to the three- dimensional design;
performing an assembly simulation using the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and the assigned relationships between the components of the active component list;
verifying the assembly simulation based on the collected data related to the three- dimensional design; and
generating a set of simulation results for the assembly simulation based on verifying the assembly simulation.
These additional limitations recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and evaluating engineering design information to produce simulation results. Specifically, the limitations involve obtaining engineering data, establishing relationships among design components, evaluating the design through simulation, verifying the simulation, and generating simulation results. Such activities constitute mental processes because they involve observation, evaluation, judgment, and analysis that can practically be performed in the human mind, although a computer may perform them more efficiently.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim recites using three-dimensional CAD files during an assembly simulation, the claim does not recite a specific simulation algorithm, a particular technique for assigning relationships between CAD components, an improvement to CAD processing, or an improvement to processor or memory functionality. Instead, the processor merely uses CAD files as input data to perform the recited analytical operations and generate simulation results. The claim therefore uses generic computer technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: No. The claim likewise fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The processor and memory perform their ordinary functions of retrieving CAD files, processing data, executing software instructions, generating simulation results, and storing or outputting those results. Likewise, obtaining CAD files, assigning relationships and generating simulation results constitute pre-solution and post-solution activities. Performing a simulation and verifying the simulation merely recite implementing the abstract idea in an execution environment. But merely using the execution environment does not make an improvement to the computer technology. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional limitations merely automate an engineering review process using generic computer technology and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 12 further recites:
modifying the assembly simulation using a what-if analysis.
This additional limitation recites the abstract idea of evaluating hypothetical scenarios and modifying a simulation based on the evaluation. A “what-if analysis” is a form of analytical reasoning used to assess alternative conditions and predict potential outcomes. Such analysis constitutes a mental process because it involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and decision-making that can practically be performed in the human mind.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm for performing the what-if analysis, an improvement to assembly simulation technology, an improvement to CAD processing, or an improvement to computer technology. Instead, the processor merely implements abstract idea using generic computer technology.
STEP 2B: No. The claim also fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Performing hypothetical analyses, evaluating alternative scenarios, and modifying simulation parameters are not indicative of a practical application because these elements merely link the use of the execution environment and the development and review environment. Merely linking the claim to the development and review environment is not indicative of a practical application because the environment is merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claims 9 and 11, the additional limitation merely automates an abstract engineering analysis using generic computer components and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 13 further recites:
generating a comparative report for the modified assembly simulation.
This additional limitation recites the abstract idea of comparing simulation results and presenting the comparison in a report. Generating a comparative report involves organizing, analyzing, and communicating information, which constitutes a mental process because such activities can practically be performed in the human mind.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim merely specifies that a comparative report is generated following the modified assembly simulation. The claim does not recite a specific reporting algorithm, an improvement to report generation technology, or an improvement to computer functionality. Rather, the processor merely uses generic computer functionality to present the results of the analytical operations.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Generating comparative reports based on simulation results is a post-solution activity, which amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited processor and memory perform their ordinary functions of processing data and generating output. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claims 9, 11, and 12, the claim merely automates the preparation of engineering documentation based on analytical results and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 14 further recites:
streaming a Virtual Reality (VR) representation of the assembly simulation.
This additional limitation recites presenting the results of the assembly simulation in a virtual reality environment. Displaying or streaming analytical results is an information presentation activity that forms part of the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and communicating engineering information. The limitation therefore remains within the judicial exception recited in claim 9.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim specifies that a VR representation is streamed, the claim does not recite a specific VR rendering technique, a particular streaming protocol, an improvement to virtual reality hardware or software, or any improvement to computer functionality. Instead, the processor merely uses ordinary virtual reality technology to present the results of the assembly simulation.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Streaming data and graphical content to a virtual reality environment is a post-solution activity, which amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor and memory perform their ordinary functions of executing instructions, processing data, and transmitting output. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claims 9 and 11, the additional limitation merely uses generic VR technology to visualize the results of the abstract engineering analysis and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 15 recites:
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:
collecting data related to a three-dimensional design;
generating an active component list for the three-dimensional design, wherein the active component list comprises a Bill Of Materials (BOM) for the three-dimensional design;
performing an assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design based on the generated active component list and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design; and
generating an analysis report based on results of executing the assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design.
These limitations recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and reporting engineering information. Specifically, the claim recites collecting design information, generating a component list, evaluating the design through simulation, and generating a report based on the simulation results. Such activities constitute mental processes because they involve observation, evaluation, judgment, and analysis that can practically be performed in the human mind, although a computer may perform them more efficiently.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements include:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
a processor executing stored instructions.
These elements merely provide a generic computing environment for implementing the abstract idea. The claim does not recite a specific simulation algorithm, a particular CAD processing technique, or an improvement to computer functionality. Instead, the processor merely executes instructions that automate the recited engineering analysis.
STEP 2B: No. The claim also fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Storing software instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executing those instructions using a generic processor are generic computer technology performing their ordinary function of executing instructions, processing data, and storing information. Collecting data, generating a BOM, performing a simulation, and generating a report constitute pre-solution and post-solution activities, which amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim merely implements the abstract idea on generic computer technology and therefore does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 16 further recites:
The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein generating the active component list for the three-dimensional design comprises:
performing an analysis of an assembly methods defined by the collected data related to the three-dimensional design;
generating an initial list of components for the three-dimensional design based on the analysis of the assembly methods;
refining the initial list of components for the three-dimensional design to generate the active component list for the three-dimensional design; and
storing the active component list for the three-dimensional design.
These additional limitations recite analyzing, organizing, refining, and storing engineering information, which are forms of mental processes. Specifically, the limitations involve evaluating assembly-related information, generating and refining a component list based on that evaluation, and storing the resulting information. Such activities can practically be performed in the human, although a computer may perform them more efficiently.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm for analyzing assembly methods, a particular technique for generating or refining the component list, an improvement to CAD processing or assembly simulation technology, or an improvement to computer functionality. Instead, the instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium merely cause a generic processor to perform conventional information-processing operations.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Executing software instructions to analyze data, generate and refine lists, and store information are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities, which amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Storing instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executing those instructions using a generic processor are ordinary computer functions. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claim 15, the additional limitations merely automate conventional engineering information processing and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 17 further recites:
wherein performing the assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design comprises:
obtaining one or more three-dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) files for each component of the active component list for the three-dimensional design;
assigning relationships between components of the active component list based on the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and collected data related to the three- dimensional design;
performing an assembly simulation using the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and the assigned relationships between the components of the active component list;
verifying the assembly simulation based on the collected data related to the three- dimensional design; and
generating a set of simulation results for the assembly simulation based on verifying the assembly simulation.
These additional limitations recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and evaluating engineering design information to produce simulation results. Specifically, the limitations involve obtaining engineering data, establishing relationships among design components, evaluating the design through simulation, verifying the simulation, and generating simulation results. These activities constitute mental processes because they involve observation, evaluation, judgment, and analysis that can practically be performed in the human mind, even though a computer may perform them more efficiently.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim recites the use of three-dimensional CAD files during an assembly simulation, the claim does not recite a particular technique for assigning relationships between CAD components, an improved simulation engine, an improvement to CAD processing, or an improvement to processor or memory functionality. Instead, the claim merely uses CAD files as input data for performing the recited analytical operations and generating simulation results using generic computer technology.
Step 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Storing software instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executing those instructions using a generic processor are ordinary functions of a generic computer. Obtaining CAD files, assigning relationships, performing an assembly simulation, verifying the simulation, and generating simulation results are simply pre-solution and post-solution activities, which amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claim 15, these additional limitations merely automate an engineering review process using generic computer technology and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18.STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 18 further recites:
modifying the assembly simulation using a what-if analysis.
This additional limitation recites the abstract idea of evaluating hypothetical scenarios and modifying a simulation based on the evaluation. A “what-if analysis” is a form of analytical reasoning used to assess alternative conditions and predict potential outcomes. Such activities involve observation, evaluation, judgment, and decision-making and therefore constitute mental processes.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm for performing the what-if analysis, an improvement to assembly simulation technology, an improvement to CAD processing, or an improvement to computer functionality. Instead, the claim merely instructs a generic processor executing instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium to modify the simulation using hypothetical analysis.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Executing software instructions to perform hypothetical analyses, evaluate alternative scenarios, and modify simulation parameters are not indicative of a practical application because these elements merely link the use of the judicial exception to the execution environment and the development and review environment. Merely linking the claim to these environments is not indicative of a practical application because the environment is merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claim 17, the additional limitation merely automates an abstract engineering analysis using generic computer technology and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 19 further recites:
generating a comparative report for the modified assembly simulation.
This additional limitation recites organizing, comparing, and presenting the results of the assembly simulation. Specifically, generating a comparative report involves evaluating simulation results and presenting the comparison. Such activities constitute mental processes because they involve observation, evaluation, judgment, and communication of information that can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific reporting algorithm, an improvement to report generation technology, an improvement to assembly simulation technology, or an improvement to computer functionality. Instead, the claim merely instructs a generic processor executing instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium to generate a report that presents the results of the previously performed analysis.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Generating comparative reports based on simulation results is a post-solution activity. Storing software instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executing those instructions using a generic processor are ordinary functions of a generic computer. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claim 18, the additional limitation merely automates the preparation of engineering documentation based on analytical results and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. Claim 20 further recites:
streaming a Virtual Reality (VR) representation of the assembly simulation.
This additional limitation recites presenting or displaying the results of the assembly simulation in a virtual reality environment. Presenting analytical results in a different visual format constitutes an additional information presentation activity associated with the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and reporting engineering information. Accordingly, the limitation does not alter the character of the claim as being directed to a judicial exception.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim specifies streaming a VR representation of the assembly simulation, the claim does not recite a particular streaming protocol, an improvement to virtual reality technology, an improvement to assembly simulation technology, or an improvement to computer functionality. Instead, the claim merely instructs a generic processor executing instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium to present the simulation results in a virtual reality environment using conventional computer technology.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Streaming graphical content to a virtual reality environment is a post-solution activity, which amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Storing software instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executing those instructions using a generic processor are ordinary functions of a generic computer. Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claim 17, the additional limitation merely uses conventional VR technology to visualize the results of the assembly simulation and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 20 is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite 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 § 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 1 - 6, 8 – 13, and 15 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altium_2022 (Altium Designer Documentation version 22, 2022) in view of Siemens_2020 (Electronics system-assembly simulation, Jay Gorajia (Siemens Digital Industries Software), Long Ting Chen and Stefan Krug (Siemens Numerical Controls Ltd.), 2020).
Claim 1. Altium_2022 teaches A method for performing an automated review and analysis on a three- dimensional design, the method comprising: collecting, by a processor of the design development and review system, data related to a three-dimensional design (page 260, par 1: “Creating the BOM Document: ActiveBOM's working BOM document is referred to as a BomDoc. Add a new BomDoc to the project via the File » New sub-menu, or right-click on the project in the Projects panel. When there is at least one component in the project, a new BomDoc can be created by clicking the + Create control next to the ActiveBOM entry within the project structure in the Projects panel. Note that each PCB project can only include one BomDoc. When you add a new BomDoc to your project, the schematic is automatically compiled and all of the existing components are listed in the BomDoc.”; page 269, par 1: “The default data sources available in ActiveBOM are the schematic component parameters, the Workspace component parameters for Workspace content, and data provided by ActiveBOM. From these sources, ActiveBOM generates the main project BOM Item grid. Data sources are enabled and their display controlled in the Columns tab of the ActiveBOM Properties panel. By enabling the relevant Sources button (above the Columns list), the BOM can also include information taken from the following additional data sources: The PCB - enable these to include PCB location/rotation/side of board data in the available Columns, for each of the components. If the project contains multiple PCB documents, the Choose PCB to Use dialog will open, from which to select the required PCB. Database - to load additional component parameters from an external database (via *.DbLib, *.SVNDbLib, or *.DbLink). Altium Cloud Services - enable this to access a broad range of additional component data, for those BOM Items that have been identified by the Altium Parts Provider and show a supply chain solution. Document Parameters - enable this to include all detected schematic document parameters, across all schematics in the PCB project in the available Columns.”); generating, by the processor of the design development and review system, an active component list for the three-dimensional design, wherein the active component list comprises a Bill Of Materials (BOM) for the three-dimensional design (page 257, par 1: “ActiveBOM is a powerful Bill of Materials management editor that combines comprehensive BOM management tools with Altium's powerful part-information aggregation technologies, helping you manage the component selection challenge.”; page 260, par 1: “ActiveBOM's working BOM document is referred to as a BomDoc.”; par 2: “When you add a new BomDoc to your project, the schematic is automatically compiled and all of the existing components are listed in the BomDoc.”; par 3: “As additional components are placed on the schematic they are automatically added into the BomDoc. Additional BOM Items and additional parameters can also be manually added directly in ActiveBOM, via the Add new button, located above the component list.”; Note: The BomDoc/BOM Items list corresponds to the claimed active component list, because it is automatically generated and updated from the design components. par 5: “The BOM Items List: The upper region of the BomDoc is a tabular list of all of the components detected in the PCB design project, as well as additional BOM Items you have added directly into the BomDoc. This region is referred to as the BOM Items list.”; page 327, par 2: “Generating a BOM: The BOM can be generated directly from the ActiveBOM editor. Select the Reports » Bill of Materials command to open the Report Manager dialog and generate the BOM.”; page 292, par 1: “ActiveBOM generates the main project BOM Item grid. The BOM also can also include information taken from the following additional data sources: PCB – enable to include PCB location/rotation/side of board data in the available Columns for each of the components.”);
Altium_2022 does not explicitly teach performing, by the processor of the design development and review system, an assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design based on the generated active component list and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design; and generating, by the processor of the design development and review system, an analysis report based on results of executing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design.
Siemens_2020, however, teaches performing, by the processor of the design development and review system, an assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design based on the generated active component list and the collected data related to the three-dimensional design (page 4, par 6: “… Tecnomatix® portfolio, including the Tecnomatix Plant Simulation module and Tecnomatix Process Simulate module by Siemens Digital Industries Software. They have the following capabilities that were leveraged to provide the analysis and results: Object-oriented models with hierarchy and inheritance; Open architecture with multiple interface support ; 3D capable visualization (using the JT™ data format); Library and object management; Discrete-event simulation analysis and visualization; A genetic algorithm for optimization; Energy consumption simulation and analysis; Value-stream mapping and simulation; Automatic analysis of simulation results; Quick scenario definition and iteration; HTML-based report builder. Also, for this study, NX™ software, Line Designer module was used to generate the 2D and 3D machine models and line models for visualization. Since Tecnomatix Plant Simulation (Plant Simulation) and Tecnomatix Process Simulate (Process Simulate) can be used to import any 2D and 3D models using the standard JT modeling language, other computer-aided design (CAD) tools may be used.” page 9, Fig 7: “Request input: 1. FGs product PN; 2. BOM; 3. Monthly demand – WH, base on 2019.06 new forecast; 4. Lot size – 8; 5. C/T, C/O; 6. Storage capacity in line side rack & pcs in one container; 7. Layout (distance in SuMa, line side rack and between of them); 8. Working time for each step. Approach: Summary and input product data to build up simulation model; Verify simulation model in real production cells;”.); and generating, by the processor of the design development and review system, an analysis report based on results of executing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design (page 4, par 13: “For our use cases in this paper, we used the Tecnomatix® portfolio, including the Tecnomatix Plant Simulation module and Tecnomatix Process Simulate module by Siemens Digital Industries Software. They have the following capabilities that were leveraged to provide the analysis and results: Object-oriented models with hierarchy and inheritance; Open architecture with multiple interface support ; 3D capable visualization (using the JT™ data format); Library and object management; Discrete-event simulation analysis and visualization; A genetic algorithm for optimization; Energy consumption simulation and analysis; Value-stream mapping and simulation; Automatic analysis of simulation results; Quick scenario definition and iteration; HTML-based report builder.”).
Altium_2022 and Siemens_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Altium_2022 and Siemens_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Altium_2022 teaches obtaining design and manufacturing data regarding to the PCB design, exporting both the BomDoc which contains the BOM list , and the CAD files. Siemens_2020 teaches constructing the simulation model from the BOM list and collected data as well as importing the CAD files, and performing assembly simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the design and manufacturing data taught by Altium_2022 with the simulation model construction and simulation execution taught by Siemens_2020 for the benefit of enhancing design review and analysis by evaluating the manufacturability and assembly process of the PCB design before physical production, thereby facilitating a smoother PCB manufacturing process.
Claim 2. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all limitations in claim 1. Altium_2022 further teaches wherein generating the active component list for the three-dimensional design comprises : (page 260, par 1: “Creating the BOM Document: ActiveBOM's working BOM document is referred to as a BomDoc. Add a new BomDoc to the project via the File » New sub-menu, or right-click on the project in the Projects panel. When there is at least one component in the project, a new BomDoc can be created by clicking the + Create control next to the ActiveBOM entry within the project structure in the Projects panel. Note that each PCB project can only include one BomDoc. When you add a new BomDoc to your project, the schematic is automatically compiled and all of the existing components are listed in the BomDoc.”); refining the initial list of components for the three-dimensional design to generate the active component list for the three-dimensional design (page 260, par 3: “As additional components are placed on the schematic they are automatically added into the BomDoc. Additional BOM Items and additional parameters can also be manually added directly in ActiveBOM, via the Add new button, located above the component list.” par 2: “When you add a new BomDoc to your project, the schematic is automatically compiled and all of the existing components are listed in the BomDoc.”); and storing the active component list for the three-dimensional design (page 257, par 1: “ActiveBOM is a powerful Bill of Materials management editor that combines comprehensive BOM management tools with Altium's powerful part-information aggregation technologies, helping you manage the component selection challenge.”; page 260, par 1: “ActiveBOM's working BOM document is referred to as a BomDoc.” par 2: “When you add a new BomDoc to your project, the schematic is automatically compiled and all of the existing components are listed in the BomDoc.”).
Altium_2022 does not explicitly teach “performing an analysis of an assembly methods defined by the collected data related to the three-dimensional design;”.
Siemens_2020; however, does teach “performing an analysis of an assembly methods defined by the collected data related to the three-dimensional design;” (page 4, par 13: “For our use cases in this paper, we used the Tecnomatix® portfolio, including the Tecnomatix Plant Simulation module and Tecnomatix Process Simulate module by Siemens Digital Industries Software. They have the following capabilities that were leveraged to provide the analysis and results: Object-oriented models with hierarchy and inheritance; Open architecture with multiple interface support ; 3D capable visualization (using the JT™ data format); Library and object management; Discrete-event simulation analysis and visualization; A genetic algorithm for optimization; Energy consumption simulation and analysis; Value-stream mapping and simulation; Automatic analysis of simulation results; Quick scenario definition and iteration; HTML-based report builder. Also, for this study, NX™ software, Line Designer module was used to generate the 2D and 3D machine models and line models for visualization. Since Tecnomatix Plant Simulation (Plant Simulation) and Tecnomatix Process Simulate (Process Simulate) can be used to import any 2D and 3D models using the standard JT modeling language, other computer-aided design (CAD) tools may be used.”; page 9, Fig. 7: “Request input: 1. FGs product PN; 2. BOM; 3. Monthly demand – WH, base on 2019.06 new forecast; 4. Lot size – 8; 5. C/T, C/O; 6. Storage capacity in line side rack & pcs in one container; 7. Layout (distance in SuMa, line side rack and between of them); 8. Working time for each step. “)
Altium_2022 and Siemens_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Altium_2022 and Siemens_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Altium_2022 teaches collecting design and manufacturing data, generating an initial component list based on the analysis results, and refining and storing the list. The resulting design data provide information that can later be used for constructing an assembly simulation model. Siemens_2020 teaches constructing and executing an assembly simulation model using collected CAD and manufacturing data to analyze an assembly process and exporting the resulting analysis results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Altium_2022 and Siemens_2020 for the benefit of using the design and manufacturing data to evaluate the assembly process, refining the active component list based on the resulting analysis, and improving the accuracy and usefulness of the active component list for subsequent design review and manufacturing analysis.
Claim 3. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all limitations in claim 2. Altium_2022 teaches wherein generating the active component list for the three-dimensional design further comprises exporting the active component list for the three-dimensional design (page 260, par 1: “Creating the BOM Document: ActiveBOM's working BOM document is referred to as a BomDoc. Add a new BomDoc to the project via the File » New sub-menu, or right-click on the project in the Projects panel. When there is at least one component in the project, a new BomDoc can be created by clicking the + Create control next to the ActiveBOM entry within the project structure in the Projects panel. Note that each PCB project can only include one BomDoc. When you add a new BomDoc to your project, the schematic is automatically compiled and all of the existing components are listed in the BomDoc.”; page 327, par 2: “Generating a BOM: The BOM can be generated directly from the ActiveBOM editor. Select the Reports » Bill of Materials command to open the Report Manager dialog and generate the BOM.”; page 328, par 1: “The Report Manager is the standard BOM output setup dialog, the same dialog that is opened when Bill of Materials is selected from the schematic or PCB editor's Report menu, or when a BOM is configured in an OutputJob. The Report Manager shares many features with the ActiveBOM interface, simplifying the process of configuring the BOM. If there is an ActiveBOM document (BomDoc) in the project then the layout settings defined in it, are automatically applied in the Report Manager. BOM Sets defined in the ActiveBOM document are available, easily switch from one BOM layout to another. Excel-format files can be generated, without requiring Microsoft Excel® to be installed (select the Microsoft Excel File (*.xls, *.xlsx) option)”).
Claim 4. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all limitations in claim 3. Altium_2022 teaches wherein performing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design comprises: obtaining one or more three-dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) files for each component of the active component list for the three-dimensional design (page 370, 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 371, par 2: “Placing 3D Body objects to define the components' shape allows you to get a real sense of the arrangement of the components on the assembled board. As well as being able to see what the finished board will look like, real-time 3D clearance checking can be performed, allowing component-to-component and component-to-housing collisions to be detected during the design stage.”; page 521, par 4: “The STEP file format itself (*.step or *.stp) is defined in the ISO 10303-21 (International Organization for Standardization) specification for CAD data exchange and is supported by the majority of MCAD tools and systems. At the fundamental file exchange level, Altium Designer offers both export and import capabilities for 3D STEP files.”); assigning relationships between components of the active component list based on the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and collected data related to the three-dimensional design (page 372, par 11: “In the source section of the properties panel, click to set the source to: … link to model – the 3D model file is linked to the PCB …”; page 342, par 4: "Unified Data Model And Project Compilation: A Unified Data Model (UDM) is automatically created in the computer’s memory. The UDM models every aspect of the design, including the components, the connectivity, the component footprints, the relationships between the PCB project and a connected FPGA project, etc. It is this Unified Data Model that enables cross-probing functionality between different design domains."; page 342, par 1: "The Cross-Probing and Cross Selecting features are powerful search tools to help locate objects in other editors by selecting the object in the current editor."; page 342, par 3: "Cross selecting enables you to select an object(s) on the source document and by enabling the cross select command, the same object(s) will be selected on the target document.". Note: Altium_2022 also teaches maintaining associations between the ActiveBOM, schematic, and PCB through Cross Probe and Cross Select functionality. page 280, par 1: "Working Between the BomDoc, the Schematic and the PCB: There are two features available to help you work between the BomDoc, the schematic and the PCB design: Cross Select and Cross Probe. The behavior of these features is configured in the System - Navigation page of the Preferences dialog. Both of these features can be used to locate the same component in other documents. The difference between Cross Select and Cross Probe is that Cross Select Mode selects the component in the target document but does not actively present that document, whereas Cross Probe actively presents the target document, and can also switch and make the target document's editor the active editor. You can Cross Select or Cross Probe from the BomDoc to the schematic and PCB, you can not Cross Select or Cross Probe from the schematic or PCB, to the BomDoc."; page 257, par 3: "No longer a simple output file, ActiveBOM raises the component management process to sit alongside the schematic capture and PCB design processes, where ActiveBOM's BomDoc becomes the source of all Bill Of Materials data for the PCB project, for all BOM-type outputs. ActiveBOM is now the recommended approach to BOM management. "; page 522, par 3: “The STEP file export capabilities are available through the STEP and MBASTEP exporters …”; page 523, par 1: “Alternatively, select the File » Export » STEP 3D command from the main menus of Altium Designer's PCB editor. After launching the command, nominate a target file name and location. The Export Options dialog accessed by double-clicking an added STEP export output or launching the File » Export » STEP 3D command provides a range of selections that include options to determine which board objects will be included in the generated file.”);
Altium_2022 does not explicitly teach performing an assembly simulation using the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and the assigned relationships between the components of the active component list; verifying the assembly simulation based on the collected data related to the three- dimensional design; and generating a set of simulation results for the assembly simulation based on verifying the assembly simulation.
Siemens_2020; however, teaches performing an assembly simulation using the obtained three-dimensional CAD files and the assigned relationships between the components of the active component list (page 5, par 2: “Since Tecnomatix Plant Simulation (Plant Simulation) and Tecnomatix Process Simulate (Process Simulate) can be used to import any 2D and 3D models using the standard JT modeling language, other computer-aided design (CAD) tools may be used.”; page 12, par 2: "The first step in creating the simulation was to ensure we identify all the parts of the cell."; page 12, par 1: “Simulation for this study was done with Process Simulate utilizing 2D and 3D visualizations created in Siemens’ NX CAD software.”; page 4, par 13: “… Tecnomatix® portfolio, including the Tecnomatix Plant Simulation module and Tecnomatix Process Simulate module by Siemens Digital Industries Software. They have the following capabilities that were leveraged to provide the analysis and results: Object-oriented models with hierarchy and inheritance; Open architecture with multiple interface support ; 3D capable visualization (using the JT™ data format); Library and object management; Discrete-event simulation analysis and visualization; A genetic algorithm for optimization; Energy consumption simulation and analysis; Value-stream mapping and simulation; Automatic analysis of simulation results; Quick scenario definition and iteration; HTML-based report builder.”); verifying the assembly simulation based on the collected data related to the three- dimensional design (page 3, Fig 1: "Collect and validate data … Test and validate model … Simulate and analyze"; page 9, Fig 7: "...Verifying simulation model in real production cells..."; page 11, par 3: "Process Simulate is a digital manufacturing solution for process verification in a 3D environment. Using Process Simulate enables manufacturing organizations to virtually validate manufacturing concepts upfront, ...”; page 13, par 3: " the robot was simulated along with human worker actions and positions, and the model was defined to validate and simulate production on a regular basis during production planning."); and generating a set of simulation results for the assembly simulation based on verifying the assembly simulation (page 7, par 2: "Plant Simulation reported current state simulation results of 48,485 units, rather than the forecasted 51,186 units. The simulation output is illustrated in figure 3 for both capacity (throughput) as well as utilization."; page 8, par 1: "Both scenarios were input into the simulation software and the resulting output analyzed."; page 8, par 3: " A real product order was imported into the model and the simulation result was compared with the actual results.").
Altium_2022 and Siemens_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called computer-aided design (CAD). Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Altium_2022 and Siemens_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been Altium_2022 teaches obtaining the CAD files for each component, assigning the component relationships, and exporting the CAD design files and design data. The CAD design files and the design data provide information that can be used to construct a simulation model. Siemens_2020 teaches constructing a simulation model based on the CAD design files and collected design data, executing an assembly simulation model, verifying the simulation result, and exporting the resulting analysis results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Altium_2022 and Siemens_2020 for the benefit of evaluating and verifying the assembly process in order to improve the PCB manufacturing operations.
Claim 5. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all limitations in claim 4. Siemens_2020 further teaches wherein performing the assembly simulation for the three-dimensional design further comprises modifying the assembly simulation using a what-if analysis (page 16, par 5: "The digital model not only enables you to run experiments and what-if scenarios without disturbing an existing production system …").
Claim 6. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all limitations in claim 5. Siemens_2020 further teaches wherein performing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design further comprises generating a comparative report for the modified assembly simulation (page 16, par 5: "The digital model not only enables you to run experiments and what-if scenarios without disturbing an existing production system …"; page 5, par 4: “Scenarios are the list of variables to change and investigate results. In some cases, this may include: Testing different number of shifts; Testing different number of resources (stations, operators, cells, etc.); Moving AGV routes; Changing Kanban locations; Adding/removing assets; Adjustments to speeds (conveyor, material delivery, etc.); And many more Iterating these study scenarios, reviewing the results and providing management reports allows simulation studies to provide value to the organization.”).
Claim 8. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all limitations in claim 4. Siemens_2020 further teaches exporting the generated set of simulation results (page 4, par 13: “They have the following capabilities that were leveraged to provide the analysis and results: Object-oriented models with hierarchy and inheritance; Open architecture with multiple interface support ; 3D capable visualization (using the JT™ data format); Library and object management; Discrete-event simulation analysis and visualization; A genetic algorithm for optimization; Energy consumption simulation and analysis; Value-stream mapping and simulation; Automatic analysis of simulation results; Quick scenario definition and iteration; HTML-based report builder.”).
Claim 9. The limitations of claim 9 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 10. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 9. The additional limitations of claim 10 are substantially the same as those of claim 2, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 10.
Claim 11. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 9. The additional limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 4 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4.
Claim 12. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 11. The additional limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 5 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 5.
Claim 13. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 12. The additional limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as those of claim 6 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 6.
Claim 15. The limitations of claim 15 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 16. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 15. The additional limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as those of claim 2, and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2.
Claim 17. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 15. The additional limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as those of claim 4 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4.
Claim 18. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 15. The additional limitations of claim 18 are substantially the same as those of claim 5 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 5.
Claim 19. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 18. The additional limitations of claim 19 are substantially the same as those of claim 6 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 6.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 in view of TechViz_2020 (4 cases where a virtual assembly line helps manufacturing [use cases], TechViz, 2020).
Claim 7. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all limitations in claim 4. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 does not teach wherein performing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design further comprises streaming a Virtual Reality (VR) representation of the assembly simulation.
TechViz_2020; however, teaches “wherein performing the assembly simulation for the three- dimensional design further comprises streaming a Virtual Reality (VR) representation of the assembly simulation” (page 2, par 8: "Using the 'Virtual Assembly' feature of TechViz, it is possible to move interactively any part of the CAD model, see the collisions and record a path that can be reloaded later for further studies."; page 1, par 2: "VR takes manufacturing a step further, making it possible to visualize or simulate assembly process, maintenance scenario or quality control. Virtual reality offers many benefits for manufacturing."; page 7, par 6: "With VR collaboration, multiple users can navigate the same 3D model from different locations and with different VR display system ...").
Claim 14. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 11. The additional limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 7 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 7.
Claim 20. Altium_2022 in view of Siemens_2020 teaches all the limitations in claim 17. The additional limitations of claim 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 7 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 7.
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