DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-43 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on
04/03/2023.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 13-18, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US10450053B2 by Doyle et al.
Claim(s) 6-7, 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US10450053B2 by Doyle et al. view of NPL by Yun Peng et al. “A pre-assembly analysis technology of aircraft components based on measured data” (2022) in further view of NPL by Oliver Martin “Metrology Enabled Tooling for the Assembly of Aero-Structures” (2015)
Claim(s) 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US10450053B2 by Doyle et al. view of NPL by Yun Peng et al. “A pre-assembly analysis technology of aircraft components based on measured data” (2022)
This action is made Non-Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a model generator to generate a first model of a first component and a second model of a second component before the first component and the second component are coupled together” and " “a model analyzer that analyzes the first model and the second model to determine a dimension of a gap between a first mating surface of the first component and a second mating surface of the second component after the first component and the second component are coupled together” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Limitation : “a model generator to generate a first model of a first component and a second model of a second component before the first component and the second component are coupled together”
Claimed Function: To generate a first model of a first component and a second model of a second component.
Prong 1 Analysis: The limitation is expressed in purely functional language ("to generate"). It defines the element by what it does (the action of model creation) rather than by its specific physical structure or components.
Prong 2 Analysis: The term "generator" is a functional placeholder (nonce word) that does not connote a sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in the absence of structural modifiers. The claim provides no physical structure, such as specific circuitry or hardware constraints, to perform the "generating" function. The presumption against § 112(f) is rebutted because the term fails to recite structure and instead recites a function.
Prong 3 Analysis: The specification identifies the "model generator" as a component implemented via "program code" [0108 & FIG. 15] executed by a "data processing system" [0121 & FIG. 15] or "computer program product 922" [0108 & FIG. 15]. For computer-implemented functions, the corresponding structure is a special-purpose computer programmed with a specific algorithm. The specification (FIG. 2) describes the algorithm for acquiring coordinate data (point clouds) from a measurement system and fitting surfaces to that data to form the models.
§ 112(f) Applies? YES.
The term "model generator" is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language. Because the claim fails to recite sufficiently definite structure to perform the "generating" function, the presumption against the application of § 112(f) is rebutted. The limitation is construed to cover the corresponding structure (special-purpose computer/program code) and algorithms described in the specification [MPEP § 2181].
Limitation: “a model analyzer that analyzes the first model and the second model to determine a dimension of a gap between a first mating surface of the first component and a second mating surface of the second component after the first component and the second component are coupled together”
Claimed Function: To analyze the models to determine a dimension of a gap post-coupling.
Prong 1 Analysis: The limitation is expressed functionally ("analyzes... to determine"). It recites a result (gap determination) rather than a physical structure.
Prong 2 Analysis: "Analyzer" is a generic placeholder/nonce word similar to "module" or "unit". The claim does not specify any structural attributes for the analysis; it only specifies what the analyzer does. This is insufficient structure to avoid § 112(f).
Prong 3 Analysis: The specification links this function to the "computer program product 922" [0133 & FIG. 2]. The corresponding structure is the data processing system programmed with the specific algorithms for "best fit alignment" (least squares) [0072 & FIG. 2] to determine gap dimensions described in paragraphs through.
§ 112(f) Applies? YES.
Potential § 112(b) Issue? Yes. The specification fails to disclose a sequence of steps or a flowchart sufficient to transform a general-purpose computer into the special-purpose 'model analyzer' required to determine the post-coupling gap dimension. Instead, the specification merely recites the 'outcome' of the analysis (determining a gap). Consequently, the claim fails to provide the public with notice of the boundaries of the protected subject matter [MPEP § 2181; MPEP § 7.34.23]
"Model analyzer" is a functional term lacking structural meaning in the art. The presumption against § 112(f) is rebutted by the purely functional recitation of analyzing and determining gaps. The limitation is construed to cover the computer-implemented algorithms for best-fit alignment and residual analysis disclosed in the specification [MPEP § 2181].
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 1-14 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 limitation “a model analyzer that analyzes the first model and the second model to determine a dimension of a gap between a first mating surface of the first component and a second mating surface of the second component after the first component and the second component are coupled together” in Claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because The term 'model analyzer' is a functional placeholder that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For computer-implemented functions, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the specific computer function. Here, the specification fails to disclose a sequence of steps or a flowchart sufficient to transform a general-purpose computer into the special-purpose 'model analyzer' required to determine the post-coupling gap dimension. Instead, the specification merely recites the 'outcome' of the analysis (determining a gap). Consequently, the claim fails to provide the public with notice of the boundaries of the protected subject matter [MPEP § 2181; MPEP § 7.34.23]. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 13-18, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US10450053B2 by Doyle et al. .
Regarding Claim 1
Doyle teaches A system comprises: (§4 Line 43 “FIG. 8 is a block diagram showing the architecture of a system for generating a shim model based on surface data collected by a metrology system from the parts to be shimmed.” Fig. 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
864
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) a model generator1 that generates a first model of a first component and a second model of a second component before the first component and the second component are coupled together (§14 Line 21-26: “(e) fitting a first virtual surface to a measurement data set of the first aligned measurement data corresponding to the first mating surface; (f) fitting a second virtual surface to a measurement data set of the second aligned measurement data corresponding to the second mating surface;” The examiner interprets where the First/Second models created pre-coupling is shown a first/second virtual surface to be fitted to measurement data of first /second parts obtained in their own frames before assembly.) and a model analyzer2 that analyzes the first model and the second model to determine a dimension of a gap between a first mating surface of the first component and a second mating surface of the second component after the first component and the second component are coupled together. (§14 Line 27-28: “(g) estimating gaps between the first and second virtual surfaces to obtain estimated gaps;”)
Regarding Claim 2
Doyle teaches The system of claim 1 (See claim 1). Doyle teaches wherein the model analyzer determines an overall deviation (§7 Line 36-40: “That computer application is configured to align the skin measurement data to the engineering model of the assembled skin/longeron (step 60 in FIG. 7) using a best fit algorithm to align the skin 2 and its DA holes to their respective engineering locations.”
Fig.7:
PNG
media_image2.png
492
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where determines overall deviation is shown in the alignment of measurement data to find the best fit which inherently calculates deviation.) in a normal direction (Measuring deviation along a surface normal is the standard metrological method for surface-to-model comparison. See Standard Metrology Practice (MPEP § 2144.03)) between the first model and a nominal model of the first component. (See FIG. 7: The examiner interprets where the First Model vs. Nominal Model is shown in the alignment of the "measurement data with engineering model" in FIG. 7.
Regarding Claim 3
Doyle teaches The system of claim 2 (See claim 2). Doyle teaches wherein the model analyzer performs a best fit3 alignment between the first model and the nominal model of the first component to determine the overall deviation (See FIG. 7: The examiner interprets where best fit alignment & data vs. nominal model is shown in the aligning measurement data to engineering model and where determine overall deviation is shown in the analyzation of longeron for surface deviation (Step 56).
Regarding Claim 4
Doyle teaches The system of claim 2 (See claim 2). Doyle teaches wherein the model analyzer determines an overall dimension of the overall deviation in the normal direction4 (See FIG. 7: "analyzation of longeron for surface deviations (Step 56).”
Regarding Claim 5
Doyle teaches The system of claim 4 (See claim 4). Doyle teaches wherein the model analyzer maps the overall deviation from an XYZ-coordinate system to a UVW-coordinate such that values for the dimensions of the overall deviation are represented along a W-axis5. (See FIG. 7: The examiner interprets where Mapping XYZ to UVW is shown in the alignment of measurement data to an engineering mode and where Representation along W-axis is shown in the Estimated gaps (Step 64). Specification clarifies that the W-axis represents the normal deviation after the "designed shape" is removed by the mapping. This represents standard surface-error modeling.)
Regarding Claim 8
Doyle in combination with Peng teaches The system of claim 6 (See claim 6). Doyle teaches
wherein the model analyzer filters the values using a robust gaussian regression filter. (See §10 Line 46-48: The examiner interprets where the Robust Gaussian regression filter is shown in the identification of surface deviations.
Regarding Claim 9
Doyle in teaches The system of claim 6 (See claim 6). Doyle teaches wherein: the model analyzer modifies the nominal model by the waviness deviation; (See FIG. 7: The examiner interprets where modifies nominal model by waviness is shown in the alignment of measurements to an engineering model to find deviations.) and the nominal model as modified by the waviness deviation represents the first mating surface of the first component after the first component and the second component are coupled together. (§2 Line 6-7: “This process enables, prior to assembly, the fabrication of shims that optimize part orientation during assembly.” The examiner interprets where Modified model represents surface post-coupling is shown in the aim to optimize part orientation by simulating the assembled state.)
Regarding Claim 10
Doyle teaches The system of claim 9 (See claim 9). Doyle teaches wherein the model analyzer maps the waviness deviation from the UVW-coordinate system to the XYZ-coordinate system (§2 Line 56-63: “(c) aligning the first measurement data to first engineering location data that represents a specified location of the first part in a frame of reference of an engineering model, giving priority to virtual alignment of the key feature with its associated engineering location; (d) aligning the second measurement data to second engineering location data that represents a specified location of the second part in the frame of reference of the engineering model;” The examiner interprets where Maps UVW back to XYZ is shown in the transformation of data into the "frame of reference of the engineering model.") such that values for waviness dimensions of the waviness deviation are represented as distances relative to the nominal model. (See FIG.7 (STEP 64): The examiner interprets where Represented as distances relative to nominal is shown Step 64 "Estimate gaps.")
Regarding Claim 11
Doyle teaches The system of claim 1 (See claim 1) further comprising a measurement system to generate first data representing at least a portion of the first mating surface of the first component and second data representing at least a portion of the second mating surface of the second component (See FIG. 7: The examiner interpret where Measurement System & Generate first and second data are shown as measurement data (The steps of "MEASURE LONGERON" and "MEASURE SKIN" inherently require a measurement system) & measuring the first component (Longeron) and second component (Skin) to get data.) before the first mating surface and the second mating surface are mated. (§1 Line 40-44: “Predictive shimming typically involves measuring the mating surfaces of the parts prior to assembly, performing a virtual assembly of the parts, estimating the resulting gap between the parts, and then fabricating a filler prior to assembly.”)
Regarding Claim 13
Doyle teaches The system of claim 1 (See claim 1) wherein the model generator and the model analyzer take the form of program code (§12 Line 9-14: “As used in the preceding sentence, the terms “computer” and “processor” both refer to devices having a processing unit (e.g., a central processing unit) and some form of memory (i.e., a non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage medium) for storing a program which is readable by the processing unit” The examiner interprets where the Generator/Analyzer Program Code is shown in the mentioning of a "program" stored in memory that is readable by a processing unit to perform the virtual alignment and shim geometry determination.) that is executed by a data processing system. (§12 Line 5-14: “As used herein, the term “computer system” should be construed broadly to encompass a system having at least one computer or processor, and which may have multiple computers or processors that communicate through a network or bus. As used in the preceding sentence, the terms “computer” and “processor” both refer to devices having a processing unit (e.g., a central processing unit) and some form of memory (i.e., a non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage medium) for storing a program which is readable by the processing unit.” The examiner interprets where Executed by a Data Processing System is shown its "computer system" as comprising a "processor" and "memory."
Regarding Claim 14
Doyle teaches using the system of claim 1. (See claim 1) A method for fabricating a filler (§2 Line 6-12: “This process enables, prior to assembly, the fabrication of shims that optimize part orientation during assembly. By fabricating shims prior to assembly, this process reduces production flow and can reduce critical path flow. By using measurement data to virtually align the parts, one can determine the filler geometry needed to optimize the final part orientation.” Also See FIG. 7 (STEP 72): The examiner interprets where Method for fabricating filler is shown in a method to "fabricate shims prior to assembly" based on predicted geometry. FIG. 7, Step 72 recites "UPLOAD TO FABRICATION QUEUE".)
Regarding Claim 15
Method version of claim 1 for fabricating a filler. Similar rejection, see claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16
Method version of claim 2 for fabricating a filler. Similar rejection, see claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17
Method version of claim 3 for fabricating a filler. Similar rejection, see claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18
Method version of claim 4 for fabricating a filler. Similar rejection, see claim 4.
Regarding Claim 32
Article of manufacture version of claim for storing code. Similar rejection, see claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US10450053B2 by Doyle et al. view of NPL by Yun Peng et al. “A pre-assembly analysis technology of aircraft components based on measured data” (2022) in further view of NPL by Oliver Martin “Metrology Enabled Tooling for the Assembly of Aero-Structures” (2015).
Regarding Claim 6
Doyle teaches The system of claim 5 (See claim 5). Doyle teaches wherein the model analyzer filters the values for the dimensions of the overall deviation6 (§10 Line 46-48: “In accordance with one implementation, it is assumed that one side of the shim will be flat and all of the surface-to-surface gap deviations are applied with respect to that side.”)
While Doyle fails to explicitly name the steps of "filtering into form and waviness," the specification acknowledges that these terms represent "large-scale" and "small-scale" components of the measured variation. Peng teaches wherein the model analyzer filters the values for the dimensions of the overall deviation (P.4 §4 ¶1: “Data processing and feature reconstruction contents belong to the research scope of reverse engineering [21, 22]. Figure 4 shows the basic process of inverse modeling in reverse engineering: (a) data acquisition of physical samples to obtain measured data; (b) pre-processing these data, including data alignment, denoising, simplification, point cloud triangulation, etc; (c) based on the data pre-processing results, the feature parameters are extracted to complete the model reconstruction.” P.5 §4.1 ¶1 Figure 4:
PNG
media_image3.png
315
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where Filters overall deviation values is shown in the identification of data pre-processing (denoising/simplification in Figure 4) and feature reconstruction which are standard filtering steps for point clouds.) into a form deviation and a waviness deviation. (P.4 §4 ¶1 “Subsequently, the measured data is processed and reconstructed to obtain the actual geometric shape of the part, based on which the product is pre-assembled and analyzed to evaluate the assembly quality in advance.” The examiner interprets where into form and waviness derivation is shown in the reconstruction of the geometric shape isolating form.)
While Peng teaches that measured aircraft data requires "pre-processing" and "feature reconstruction" to isolate the actual geometric shape for pre-assembly analysis, Doyle in further view of Peng fails to discusses Large Volume Metrology (LVM) software, specifically SpatialAnalyzer (SA), noting its "post-measurement analysis tools" and its ability to perform "CAD data comparison". Martin establishes that the software platforms used in the industry (e.g., SA) possess the built-in analytical tools necessary to perform complex surface-deviation filtering. Martin teaches (P.56 §2.10.2 Figure 2-18:
PNG
media_image4.png
566
975
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Separating form, waviness, and roughness is the industry standard for surface metrology (e.g., ISO 16610).)
It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to filter the surface deviations of Doyle into form and waviness components. One would be motivated to do so because separating geometric shape error (form) from surface undulations (waviness) is the routine metrological method for isolating different sources of manufacturing error. In the context of Doyle’s shimming process, this filtering ensures that the resulting shim geometry is optimized for the actual mating surface topography rather than being skewed by large-scale part errors or assembly deformations. The combination of these known metrological data-processing steps yields the predictable result of a high-precision predictive assembly system as claimed. [MPEP § 2143, Rationale A].
Regarding Claim 7
Doyle teaches The system of claim 6 (See claim 6). Doyle fails to teaches wherein the model analyzer filters the values using a low-pass filter7. Peng teaches wherein the model analyzer filters the values using a low-pass filter (See P.5 §4.1 ¶1 Figure 4: The examiner interprets where Filters values using a low-passing filter is shown in data pre-processing and denoising to reconstruct features. Denoising is functionally equivalent to low-pass filtering.)
It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a low-pass filter to perform the filtering taught by Doyle and Peng. One would be motivated to do so because a low-pass filter is the fundamental mathematical mechanism for achieving the "denoising" required by Peng to isolate the underlying surface "form" for the predictive shimming described in Doyle. The use of a low-pass filter to smooth coordinate measurement data is a routine expedient in the field of dimensional metrology that yields the predictable result of an accurate virtual assembly model. [MPEP § 2143, Rationale C].
Regarding Claim 12
Doyle teaches The system of claim 1 (See claim 1). Doyle teaches the model generator generates a filler model to fill the gap between the first mating surface and the second mating surface after the first component and the second component are coupled together; (§2 Line 43-47: “The variation in the size of the gap between first and second virtual surfaces respectively fitted to the mating surfaces of the structural component and the skin are then used to develop a shimming model.”
See also FIG. 11 (STEP 130):
PNG
media_image5.png
970
665
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where Generates a filler model is shown as a step to "develop a shim model" from virtual surfaces. Also, see FIG. 7 (STEP 68): The examiner interprets where Generate a filler model is shown in the recitation recites "FIT SURFACE TO PROJECTED GAPS" to create the shim profile.) and a filler is fabricated based on the filler model. (§2 Line 6-12: “This process enables, prior to assembly, the fabrication of shims that optimize part orientation during assembly. By fabricating shims prior to assembly, this process reduces production flow and can reduce critical path flow. By using measurement data to virtually align the parts, one can determine the filler geometry needed to optimize the final part orientation.” Also See FIG. 7 (STEP 72): The examiner interprets where Filler is fabricated based on model is shown in "UPLOAD TO FABRICATION QUEUE".
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US10450053B2 by Doyle et al. view of NPL by Yun Peng et al. “A pre-assembly analysis technology of aircraft components based on measured data” (2022)
Regarding Claim 43
Doyle teaches A method for sizing a filler for fabrication, the method comprising: (§2 Line 6-12: “This process enables, prior to assembly, the fabrication of shims that optimize part orientation during assembly. By fabricating shims prior to assembly, this process reduces production flow and can reduce critical path flow. By using measurement data to virtually align the parts, one can determine the filler geometry needed to optimize the final part orientation.” Also See FIG. 7 (STEP 72): The examiner interprets where Method for sizing filler is shown in "fabricating shims prior to assembly" based on a "shimming model" developed from virtual gaps & "UPLOAD TO FABRICATION QUEUE" in FIG. 7.) generating a first model of a first component and a second model of a second component before the first component and the second component are coupled together; (§14 Line 21-26: “(e) fitting a first virtual surface to a measurement data set of the first aligned measurement data corresponding to the first mating surface; (f) fitting a second virtual surface to a measurement data set of the second aligned measurement data corresponding to the second mating surface;” The examiner interprets where Generating pre-coupling models is shown in fitting "first virtual surface" and "second virtual surface" to measurement data obtained before assembly and determining a dimension of the filler that fits between a first mating surface of the first component and a second mating surface of the second component after the first component and the second component are coupled together. (§14 Line 27-28: “(g) estimating gaps between the first and second virtual surfaces to obtain estimated gaps;”)
Doyle fails to teach filtering out a deformation of at least one of the first component and the second component before the first component and the second component are coupled together. However, Peng teaches an aircraft pre-assembly analysis method utilizing "data pre-processing" and "feature reconstruction" to isolate the "actual geometric shape" of flexible components from measured data. Peng teaches
(P.1 §Abstract: “Subsequently, the measured data is processed and reconstructed to obtain the actual geometric shape of the part, based on which the product is pre-assembled and analyzed to evaluate the assembly quality in advance.”
P.5 §4.1 ¶1 Figure 4:
PNG
media_image3.png
315
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner interprets where Filtering out a deformation is shown in "data pre-processing" and "denoising" to reconstruct the "actual geometric shape".)
It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the filtering and reconstruction steps taught by Peng into the predictive assembly method of Doyle. One would be motivated to do so because large-scale "deformations" in flexible aircraft parts (such as the skin panel of Peng or the longeron of Doyle) are corrected by assembly forces during physical clamp-up. By "filtering out" these transient deformations from the pre-assembly model, the model analyzer creates a more accurate prediction of the mating surface topography, preventing the fabrication of incorrectly sized fillers. This data-processing choice is a routine application of known signal-processing techniques to a known manufacturing challenge, yielding the predictable result of an optimized digital-twin assembly simulation. [MPEP § 2143, Rationale C].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARIC RAYJEE MARKS whose telephone number is (571)467-6372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/AARIC R MARKS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
1 Spec [0052], [0089] “Referring to FIG. 2 , in one or more examples, the model generator 102 generates (e.g., is configured or adapter to generate) a filler model 142 to fill one or more of the gaps 116 between the first mating surface 118 and the second mating surface 120 after the first component 106 and the second component 110 are coupled together.”
2 Spec [0055], [0072], [0077], [079], [0082], [0092], [0005 “The system also includes a model analyzer that analyzes the first model and the second model to determine dimensions of a space between a first mating surface of the first component and a second mating surface of the second component after the first component and the second component are coupled together.”
3 Spec [0074]: “Performing the best fit analysis 186, such as a least squares alignment) of the first mating surface 118 represented in the first model 104 and the first mating surface 118 represented in the nominal model 124 provides the overall deviation 122 in the normal direction 150 between the first model 104 (e.g., in the as-build condition) and the nominal model 124 (e.g., the design condition).”
4 Spec [0074]: “The overall dimensions 164 are represented by or are calculated as values 130 (e.g., linear distance measurement values in the normal direction 150) relative to an XYZ-coordinate system 126.”
5 Spec [0078] : “This operation effectively removes the “designed shape” from the first component 106 so that the W-axis 152 is only deviation from the design geometry.”
6 Spec [0076]: “Referring to FIG. 2 , the overall deviation 122 includes both large-scale (e.g., gross or global) shape differences and small-scale surface variations. The large-scale shape variations represent the form 198 and are referred to herein as form deviations 132. The small-scale surface variations represent the waviness 184 and are referred to herein as waviness deviations 134. As disclosed herein, the system 100 advantageously enables the dimensions 114 of the gaps 116 that will be formed between the first mating surface 118 and the second mating surface 120 and, thus, the dimensions 196 of the fillers 144 to be fabricated to fill the gaps 116 to be determined based on only the small-scale variations (the waviness 184).”
7 Spec [0079]: “In one or more examples, the model analyzer 112 filters the values 130 using a low-pass filter 156. In one or more examples, the model analyzer 112 filters the values 130 using a robust Gaussian regression filter 158. In one or more examples, the filter 154, such as the low-pass filter 156 or the robust Gaussian regression filter 158, is run over the (u, v, w-point cloud to filter the data into form 198 and waviness 184. Because the designed curvature has effectively been removed, a first order regression function (e.g., planar regression) is selected and used for the local fitting.)
Prosecution Insights