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 .
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 13, 2023 and October 30, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “a first assembly constraint […] comprising an assembly relationship constraint, which assembly relationship constraint identifies a direct assembly connection,” which should be corrected to “a first assembly constraint […] comprising an assembly relationship constraint, wherein the assembly relationship constraint identifies a direct assembly connection,”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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) 1-4, 7-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0241403 A1), hereinafter Jakobsen, in view of Agrawala et al. (Agrawala, Maneesh, Doantam Phan, Julie Heiser, John Haymaker, Jeff Klingner, Pat Hanrahan, and Barbara Tversky. "Designing effective step-by-step assembly instructions." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 22, no. 3 (2003): 828-837.), hereinafter Agrawala.
Regarding Claim 1, Jakobsen teaches A method for generating assembly instructions for a plurality of 3D component models (“The computer system designated 101 is adapted to generate building instructions from a digital representation of a building element model.”) (e.g., paragraph [0084]).
the method comprising: generating the plurality of 3D component models in a CAD environment (“FIG. 3 shows a flow diagram of an example of a deconstruction process of a model M. The deconstruction process deconstructs the model M on the basis of a digital representation of the complete model M, including all the building elements in the model (step 301).” Figure 6 further illustrates a 3D model with a plurality of 3D components.) (e.g., Figures 3 and 6; paragraph [0100]).
the plurality of 3D component models comprising at least a first 3D component model and a second 3D component model (FIG. 6 illustrates a graphical user-interface of a building instruction application, comprising a model that consists of a plurality of building elements, wherein the plurality of building elements contain at least a first 3D component and second 3D component.) (e.g., figure 6).
the first 3D component model comprising a first geometric feature, and the second 3D component model comprising a second geometric feature (“The input of the model M includes information about the individual building elements, such as size/dimensions, number of knobs, special features such as hinges, pegs, axles etc. of the building elements.”) (e.g., paragraph [0100]).
determining first assembly instructions for assembling the plurality of 3D component models into a first 3D model assembly of the plurality of 3D component models in the CAD environment (“In step S4, the process generates building instructions from the generated construction sequence, e.g. as a sequence of images or other representations of part-models.”) (e.g., paragraph [0099]).
modifying the plurality of 3D component models by changing a quantity or composition of component models in the plurality of component models or by changing a characteristic of one or more component models of the plurality of component models (“A computer-implemented construction environment [...] provides a graphical user interface allowing a user to manipulate virtual building element models, including operations like selecting building elements, adding building elements to the model, deleting building elements from the model, changing the orientation of a building element, changing properties of a building element, e.g. color, type, size, and/or the like.”) (e.g., paragraph [0060]).
the modified plurality of 3D component models comprising the first 3D component model and the second 3D component model (FIG. 6 illustrates a graphical user-interface of a building instruction application which may be used to display the modified model comprising the first and second components.) (e.g., figure 6).
and generating second assembly instructions for assembling the modified plurality of 3D component models into a second 3D model assembly in the CAD environment using at least the first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints (“Some or all of the weight functions used in the deconstruction process may be relaxed/weakened, e.g. automatically or by a user interaction, and the process may be re-started with the relaxed weight functions.” As the assembly instructions are generated by reversing the deconstruction sequence, re-starting the process is interpreted as generating a second set of assembly instructions.) (e.g., paragraph [0220]).
the second assembly instructions different than the first assembly instructions (“Hence, in such cases, some or all of the weight functions used in the deconstruction process may be relaxed/weakened, e.g. automatically or by a user interaction, and the process may be re-started with the relaxed weight functions.” A deconstruction process with restarted with relaxed constraints is interpreted as resulting in different assembly instructions.) (e.g., paragraph [0220]).
However, Jakobsen does not appear to specifically teach determining a plurality of assembly constraints for assembling the plurality of 3D component models into the first 3D model assembly using the first assembly instructions, a first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints defining a connection relationship between the first geometric feature and the second geometric feature.
On the other hand, Agrawala, which relates similarly as a method for determining step-by-step assembly instructions, does teach determining a plurality of assembly constraints for assembling the plurality of 3D component models into the first 3D model assembly using the first assembly instructions (“Our assembly instruction design system is divided into two components; a planner and a presenter. The input consists of [...] Ordering Constraints: Constraints on the order of assembly operations in the form attach part pi before part pj”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 4).
a first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints defining a connection relationship between the first geometric feature and the second geometric feature (“Parts should only be added to the assembly when they can be fastened to it. For example, suppose that in Figure 1, the support board was added to the assembly in the first step. The next step should not attach the top shelf. Even though the top shelf is supported by the support board, the top shelf does not directly fasten onto the support board.” Fastener connections are interpreted as geometric features.) (e.g., page 4, column 2, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Jakobsen with Agrawala. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Jakobsen teaches a method for generating building instructions for a CAD model. However, Jakobsen does not appear to specifically teach determining a plurality of assembling constraints defining a connection relationship between geometric features. On the other hand, Agrawala, which relates similarly as a method for determining assembly instructions, does teach determining a plurality of assembly constraints. As both Jakobsen and Agrawala relate to assembling a plurality of LEGO bricks (e.g., Jakobsen, figure 2; Agrawala, page 5, figure 5), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the building instruction generation of Jakobsen with Agrawala; in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Furthermore, Jakobsen discloses that the instruction generator can ensure that hard constraints are never violated (e.g., paragraph [0031]). Agrawala merely provides specific assembly constraints that may be used with the method of Jakobsen. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of combining Jakobsen with Agrawala as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the instruction generation of Jakobsen with the constraints of Agrawala to implement the constraints generally disclosed in Jakobsen.
Regarding Claim 2, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 1. Jakobsen further teaches wherein modifying the plurality of 3D component models comprises adding at least one 3D component model to the plurality of 3D component models (“A computer-implemented construction environment [...] provides a graphical user interface allowing a user to manipulate virtual building element models, including operations like selecting building elements, adding building elements to the model, deleting building elements from the model, changing the orientation of a building element, changing properties of a building element, e.g. color, type, size, and/or the like.”) (e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Regarding Claim 3, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 1. Jakobsen further teaches wherein modifying the plurality of 3D component models comprises removing at least one 3D component model from the plurality of 3D component models (“A computer-implemented construction environment [...] provides a graphical user interface allowing a user to manipulate virtual building element models, including operations like selecting building elements, adding building elements to the model, deleting building elements from the model, changing the orientation of a building element, changing properties of a building element, e.g. color, type, size, and/or the like.”) (e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 1. Jakobsen further teaches wherein modifying the plurality of 3D component models comprises changing a component geometry of at least one 3D component model of the plurality of 3D component models (“A computer-implemented construction environment [...] provides a graphical user interface allowing a user to manipulate virtual building element models, including operations like selecting building elements, adding building elements to the model, deleting building elements from the model, changing the orientation of a building element, changing properties of a building element, e.g. color, type, size, and/or the like.” Changing a size is interpreted as changing a component geometry.) (e.g., paragraph [0060]).
Regarding Claim 7, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 1. Jakobsen further teaches wherein the first geometric feature is a first surface of the first 3D component model (“FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a building element and its connection elements. In particular, FIG. 4 shows a perspective view of a building element 401. The building element 401 has a top surface 402 with eight knobs 403a-h that can engage with corresponding holes of another building element, e.g. holes on the bottom surface of another building element.”) (e.g., figure 4 and paragraph [0192]).
and the second geometric feature is a second surface of the second 3D component model (“Correspondingly, building element 401 comprises a bottom surface (not shown) with corresponding holes.”) (e.g., paragraph [0192]).
Regarding Claim 8, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 1. Jakobsen further teaches wherein the modified plurality of 3D component models comprises a subset of the plurality of 3D component models, the subset of the plurality of 3D component models are assembled together in the second 3D model assembly (“In particular, in step S2, the process generates a deconstruction sequence from the received digital representation of the model, e.g. in the form of a sequential list of building elements and/or sub-assemblies of the model. The process further generates sub-ordinate deconstruction sequences for the sub-assemblies of the sequential list.” A sub-assembly is a subset of the plurality of components making up the assembly.) (e.g., paragraph [0097]).
and the assembled 3D component models of the subset of the plurality of 3D component models comprise an assembly dimension that is coincident with each 3D component model of the subset of the plurality of 3D component models (“One example of a weight function determines whether a building element/sub-assembly to be disconnected is physically accessible and detachable from the rest of the model. To this end, the weight function verifies whether one or more of the following two requirements are fulfilled: 1) All directions along which a building element/sub-assembly is detachable/connectable are parallel. This weight function may thus determine the building direction and/or the direction of connection of all connections of a building element, e.g. based on attributes associated with the corresponding node and/or edges in the connectivity graph. If all directions are parallel, the building element may be disconnected by a translational movement.” The parallel directions along which building elements may be attached are interpreted as a coincident dimension.) (e.g., paragraph [0127]).
the method further comprising: determining an assembly tolerance variation for the assembly dimension (“This weight function may thus determine the building direction and/or the direction of connection of all connections of a building element, e.g. based on attributes associated with the corresponding node and/or edges in the connectivity graph. If all directions are parallel, the building element may be disconnected by a translational movement.” The weight function is interpreted as an assembly tolerance variation.) (e.g., paragraph [0127]).
Regarding Claim 9, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 1. Agrawala further teaches wherein the first assembly constraint identifies a direct assembly connection between first geometric feature and the second geometric feature in the second 3D model assembly (“Parts should only be added to the assembly when they can be fastened to it. For example, suppose that in Figure 1, the support board was added to the assembly in the first step. The next step should not attach the top shelf. Even though the top shelf is supported by the support board, the top shelf does not directly fasten onto the support board.”) (e.g., page 4, column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 1. Jakobsen further teaches wherein: the plurality of 3D component models comprises a third 3D component model (FIG. 6 illustrates a graphical user-interface of a building instruction application, comprising a model that consists of a plurality of building elements, wherein the plurality of building elements contains a third building element.) (e.g., figure 6).
and the third 3D component model comprises a third geometric feature (“The input of the model M includes information about the individual building elements, such as size/dimensions, number of knobs, special features such as hinges, pegs, axles etc. of the building elements.”) (e.g., paragraph [0100]).
the third geometric feature separated from the first geometric feature in the first 3D model assembly (“FIG. 13 illustrates a model in which building element 1301 is movable along its direction of detachability by a distance d.”) (e.g., figure 13 and paragraph [0128]).
Agrawala further teaches and a second assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints defines a relative relationship between the first geometric feature and the third geometric feature (“Our assembly instruction design system is divided into two components; a planner and a presenter. The input consists of [...] Ordering Constraints: Constraints on the order of assembly operations in the form attach part pi before part pj.” An ordering constraint is interpreted as defining a relative relationship.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Jakobsen teaches A system for generating assembly instructions for a plurality of 3D component models (“The computer system designated 101 is adapted to generate building instructions from a digital representation of a building element model.”) (e.g., paragraph [0084]).
the system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory in communication with the processor (“FIG. 1b shows a block diagram of a data processing system for generating building instructions for building element models. The computer 101 comprises memory 102 which may partly be implemented as a volatile and partly as a non-volatile memory means, e.g. a random access memory (RAM) and a hard-disc.”) (e.g., paragraph [0085]).
the non-transitory memory storing: the plurality of 3D component models (“FIG. 3 shows a flow diagram of an example of a deconstruction process of a model M. The deconstruction process deconstructs the model M on the basis of a digital representation of the complete model M, including all the building elements in the model (step 301).” Figure 6 further illustrates a 3D model with a plurality of 3D components.) (e.g., Figures 3 and 6; paragraph [0100]).
the plurality of 3D component models comprising at least a first 3D component model and a second 3D component model (FIG. 6 illustrates a graphical user-interface of a building instruction application, comprising a model that consists of a plurality of building elements, wherein the plurality of building elements contain at least a first 3D component and second 3D component.) (e.g., figure 6).
the first 3D component model comprising a first geometric feature, and the second 3D component model comprising a second geometric feature (“The input of the model M includes information about the individual building elements, such as size/dimensions, number of knobs, special features such as hinges, pegs, axles etc. of the building elements.”) (e.g., paragraph [0100]).
and instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: generate second assembly instructions for assembling a modified plurality of 3D component models, different than the plurality of 3D component models, into a second 3D model assembly in the CAD environment using at least the first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints (“Some or all of the weight functions used in the deconstruction process may be relaxed/weakened, e.g. automatically or by a user interaction, and the process may be re-started with the relaxed weight functions.” As the assembly instructions are generated by reversing the deconstruction sequence, re-starting the process is interpreted as generating a second set of assembly instructions.) (e.g., paragraph [0220]).
the second assembly instructions different than the first assembly instructions (“Hence, in such cases, some or all of the weight functions used in the deconstruction process may be relaxed/ weakened, e.g. automatically or by a user interaction, and the process may be re-started with the relaxed weight functions.” A deconstruction process with restarted with relaxed constraints is interpreted as resulting in different assembly instructions.) (e.g., paragraph [0220]).
the modified plurality of 3D component models comprising the first 3D component model and the second 3D component model (FIG. 6 illustrates a graphical user-interface of a building instruction application which may be used to display the modified model comprising the first and second components.) (e.g., figure 6).
However, Jakobsen does not appear to specifically teach a plurality of assembly constraints for assembling the plurality of 3D component models into a 3D model assembly in a CAD environment using first assembly instructions, a first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints comprising an assembly relationship constraint between the first geometric feature and the second geometric feature.
On the other hand, Agrawala, which relates similarly as a method for determining step-by-step assembly instructions, does teach a plurality of assembly constraints for assembling the plurality of 3D component models into a 3D model assembly in a CAD environment using first assembly instructions (“Our assembly instruction design system is divided into two components; a planner and a presenter. The input consists of [...] Ordering Constraints: Constraints on the order of assembly operations in the form attach part pi before part pj”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 4).
a first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints comprising an assembly relationship constraint between the first geometric feature and the second geometric feature (“Parts should only be added to the assembly when they can be fastened to it. For example, suppose that in Figure 1, the support board was added to the assembly in the first step. The next step should not attach the top shelf. Even though the top shelf is supported by the support board, the top shelf does not directly fasten onto the support board.” Fastener connections are interpreted as geometric features.) (e.g., page 4, column 2, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Jakobsen with Agrawala for the same reasons as in Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claims 12-14, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 2-4, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the system of claim 11. Jakobsen further teaches further comprising an output device in communication with the processor (“FIG. 1a shows a schematic view of an example of a computer system. The computer system comprises a suitably programmed computer 101, e.g. a personal computer, comprising a display 120.”) (e.g., figure 1 and paragraph [0083]).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: identify that the first assembly constraint is valid or invalid for the modified plurality of 3D component models (“At step S10, the process removes b from the auxiliary set C of candidates yet to try. In step S11, the process determines whether there are still candidates left in C. If this is the case, the process returns to step S5 to identify an alternative candidate; otherwise the process terminates, e.g. with a suitable error flag or message indicating that generating a constructive building instruction failed. For example, this situation may occur if the model is over-constrained and/or if the weight functions used during the deconstruction process representing the building constraints of the model are too strong/restrictive.” Determining if a model is over-constrained is interpreted as identifying that at least one constraint is valid or invalid.) (e.g., paragraph [0220]).
and generate a warning output for the output device if the first assembly constraint is identified as invalid for the modified plurality of 3D component models (“If no valid construction step can be found, the process terminates, e.g. with a suitable error flag or message indicating that generating a constructive building instruction failed, as described in connection with FIG. 14.”) (e.g., paragraph [0234]).
Regarding Claim 16, Jakobsen teaches A method for generating assembly instructions for a plurality of 3D component models (“The computer system designated 101 is adapted to generate building instructions from a digital representation of a building element model.”) (e.g., paragraph [0084]).
the method comprising: providing the plurality of 3D component models in a CAD environment (“FIG. 3 shows a flow diagram of an example of a deconstruction process of a model M. The deconstruction process deconstructs the model M on the basis of a digital representation of the complete model M, including all the building elements in the model (step 301).” Figure 6 further illustrates a 3D model with a plurality of 3D components.) (e.g., Figures 3 and 6; paragraph [0100]).
the plurality of 3D component models comprising at least a first 3D component model and a second 3D component model (FIG. 6 illustrates a graphical user-interface of a building instruction application, comprising a model that consists of a plurality of building elements, wherein the plurality of building elements contain at least a first 3D component and second 3D component.) (e.g., figure 6).
the first 3D component model comprising a first geometric surface feature having a first unique ID, and the second 3D component model comprising a second geometric surface feature having a second unique ID (“each building element data record comprises a building element ID 505, indicating an identifier corresponding to the type of building element. The building element ID may uniquely identify the properties of the building element or type of building element.” Properties of the building element are interpreted as geometric surface features.) (e.g., paragraph [0196]).
and generating assembly instructions for assembling a modified plurality of 3D component models into a second 3D model assembly, different than the first 3D model assembly, in the CAD environment using at least the first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints (“Some or all of the weight functions used in the deconstruction process may be relaxed/weakened, e.g. automatically or by a user interaction, and the process may be re-started with the relaxed weight functions.” As the assembly instructions are generated by reversing the deconstruction sequence, re-starting the process is interpreted as generating a second set of assembly instructions.) (e.g., paragraph [0220]).
the modified plurality of 3D component models comprising the first 3D component model and the second 3D component model (FIG. 6 illustrates a graphical user-interface of a building instruction application which may be used to display the modified model comprising the first and second components.) (e.g., figure 6).
the modified plurality of 3D component models further comprising: the plurality of 3D component models and at least one additional 3D component model; the plurality of 3D component models with at least one 3D component model removed; or the plurality of 3D component models with at least one 3D component model having a changed component geometry (The Examiner notes the use of or, and the prior art provides a plurality of 3D component models with at least one additional component. “A computer-implemented construction environment [...] provides a graphical user interface allowing a user to manipulate virtual building element models, including operations like selecting building elements, adding building elements to the model, deleting building elements from the model, changing the orientation of a building element, changing properties of a building element, e.g. color, type, size, and/or the like.” Figure 6 further discloses an assembly with multiple building elements, with additional elements 714, 715, and 716 added.) (e.g., figure 6 and paragraph [0060]).
However, Jakobsen does not appear to specifically teach providing a plurality of assembly constraints for assembling the plurality of 3D component models into a first 3D model assembly, a first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints comprising an assembly relationship constraint, which assembly relationship constraint identifies a direct assembly connection between the first geometric surface feature and the second geometric surface feature.
providing a plurality of assembly constraints for assembling the plurality of 3D component models into a first 3D model assembly (“Our assembly instruction design system is divided into two components; a planner and a presenter. The input consists of [...] Ordering Constraints: Constraints on the order of assembly operations in the form attach part pi before part pj”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 4).
a first assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints comprising an assembly relationship constraint, which assembly relationship constraint identifies a direct assembly connection between the first geometric surface feature and the second geometric surface feature (“Parts should only be added to the assembly when they can be fastened to it. For example, suppose that in Figure 1, the support board was added to the assembly in the first step. The next step should not attach the top shelf. Even though the top shelf is supported by the support board, the top shelf does not directly fasten onto the support board.” Fastener connections are interpreted as geometric features.) (e.g., page 4, column 2, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Jakobsen with Agrawala for the same reasons as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 16. Jakobsen further teaches wherein: the plurality of 3D component models comprises a third 3D component model (FIG. 6 illustrates a graphical user-interface of a building instruction application, comprising a model that consists of a plurality of building elements, wherein the plurality of building elements contains a third building element.) (e.g., figure 6).
and the third 3D component model comprises a geometric feature and the third 3D component model comprises a third geometric feature (“The input of the model M includes information about the individual building elements, such as size/dimensions, number of knobs, special features such as hinges, pegs, axles etc. of the building elements.”) (e.g., paragraph [0100]).
the geometric feature separated from the first geometric surface feature in the first 3D model assembly (“FIG. 13 illustrates a model in which building element 1301 is movable along its direction of detachability by a distance d.”) (e.g., figure 13 and [0128]).
Agrawala further teaches a second assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints comprises an assembly geometric constraint between the first geometric surface feature and the geometric feature (“Our assembly instruction design system is divided into two components; a planner and a presenter. The input consists of [...] Ordering Constraints: Constraints on the order of assembly operations in the form attach part pi before part pj.” An ordering constraint is interpreted as defining a relative relationship.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 4).
and the assembly geometric constraint identifies one or both of a position and an orientation of the first geometric surface feature relative to the geometric feature in the first 3D model assembly (“Parts should only be added to the assembly when they can be fastened to it. For example, suppose that in Figure 1, the support board was added to the assembly in the first step. The next step should not attach the top shelf. Even though the top shelf is supported by the support board, the top shelf does not directly fasten onto the support board.” Fastener connections are interpreted as geometric features.) (e.g., page 4, column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 16. Jakobsen further teaches further comprising identifying that each assembly constraint of the plurality of assembly constraints is valid or invalid for the modified plurality of 3D component models (“At step S10, the process removes b from the auxiliary set C of candidates yet to try. In step S11, the process determines whether there are still candidates left in C. If this is the case, the process returns to step S5 to identify an alternative candidate; otherwise the process terminates, e.g. with a suitable error flag or message indicating that generating a constructive building instruction failed. For example, this situation may occur if the model is over-constrained and/or if the weight functions used during the deconstruction process representing the building constraints of the model are too strong/restrictive.” Determining if a model is over-constrained is interpreted as identifying that at least one constraint is valid or invalid.) (e.g., paragraph [0220]).
Regarding Claim 20, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 19. Jakobsen further teaches further comprising generating a warning output if one or more assembly constraints of the plurality of assembly constraints are identified as invalid for the modified plurality of 3D component models (“If no valid construction step can be found, the process terminates, e.g. with a suitable error flag or message indicating that generating a constructive building instruction failed, as described in connection with FIG. 14.”) (e.g., paragraph [0234]).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsen in view of Agrawala, further in view of Haller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0107673 A1), hereinafter Haller.
Regarding Claim 5, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 1. Jakobsen further teaches wherein the first geometric feature has a first unique ID (“each building element data record comprises a building element ID 505, indicating an identifier corresponding to the type of building element. The building element ID may uniquely identify the properties of the building element or type of building element.”) (e.g., paragraph [0196]).
However, neither Jakobsen nor Agrawala appear to specifically teach the method further comprising: storing the plurality of assembly constraints in a database; and indexing the first assembly constraint with the first geometric feature using the first unique ID.
On the other hand, Haller, which relates similarly as a method for constructing a model using CAD, does teach storing the plurality of assembly constraints in a database (“In one embodiment, two databases are present. One database is a feature database and contains data used to model standard features, such as holes. The feature database may be an integrated component of the software module that generates a feature, such as a component of the hole wizard tool. The second database is a part library, which is a collection of parts.” The feature database is interpreted as storing constraints used to model features.) (e.g., paragraph [0047]).
and indexing the first assembly constraint with the first geometric feature using the first unique ID (“In one embodiment, the descriptor is a set of attributes that when taken together may be conceptualized as a descriptive text string. For example, the string `ANSI inch {fraction (1/4)}" socket head cap screw 1.85" through hole` represents descriptor attributes for a standard, size, type, and length, which together contain design intent of a hole feature […] The part library contains data used to create models of standard components and is indexed by the descriptors that may be constructed by a feature generator.” The data used to create models are interpreted as comprising constraints, wherein the descriptor comprises a geometric feature and a unique ID.) (e.g., paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Jakobsen in view of Agrawala with Haller. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Jakobsen teaches a method for generating building instructions for a CAD model. However, Jakobsen does not appear to specifically teach storing constraints in a database and indexing constraints using a first geometric feature. On the other hand, Haller, which relates similarly as a method for constructing a model using CAD, does teach a constraint database and indexing constraints using a geometric feature and ID. As both Jakobsen and Haller relate to constructing models using CAD (e.g., Jakobsen, figure 2; Haller, abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the building instruction generation of Jakobsen with the constraint database and indexing of Haller; in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Furthermore, Jakobsen discloses that the instruction generator can ensure that hard constraints are never violated (e.g., paragraph [0031]). Haller merely provides specific method for managing said constraints. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of combining Jakobsen with Haller as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the instruction generation of Jakobsen with the constraint database and indexing of Haller to implement the constraints generally disclosed in Jakobsen.
Regarding Claim 6, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala and Haller teaches the method of claim 5. Jakobsen further teaches wherein generating the plurality of 3D component models in the CAD environment comprises generating a first 3D surface representation of the first geometric feature (“FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a building element and its connection elements;” The connection elements are interpreted as geometric features.) (e.g., figure 4 and paragraph [0074]).
and indexing the first 3D surface representation with the first unique ID, the first 3D surface representation independent of the first 3D component model (“each building element data record comprises a building element ID 505, indicating an identifier corresponding to the type of building element. The building element ID may uniquely identify the properties of the building element or type of building element.”) (e.g., paragraph [0196]).
Regarding Claim 17, Jakobsen in view of Agrawala teaches the method of claim 16. However, neither Jakobsen nor Agrawala teaches wherein the first assembly constraint is indexed with the first 3D component model using the first unique ID.
On the other hand, Haller, which relates similarly as a method for constructing a model using CAD, does teach wherein the first assembly constraint is indexed with the first 3D component model using the first unique ID (“In one embodiment, the descriptor is a set of attributes that when taken together may be conceptualized as a descriptive text string. For example, the string `ANSI inch {fraction (1/4)}" socket head cap screw 1.85" through hole` represents descriptor attributes for a standard, size, type, and length, which together contain design intent of a hole feature […] The part library contains data used to create models of standard components and is indexed by the descriptors that may be constructed by a feature generator.” The data used to create models are interpreted as comprising constraints, wherein the descriptor comprises a geometric feature and a unique ID.) (e.g., paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Jakobsen in view of Agrawala with Haller for the same reasons as in Claim 5, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su et al. (Su, Qiang, and Sheng-Jie Lai. "3D geometric constraint analysis and its application on the spatial assembly sequence planning." International Journal of Production Research 48, no. 5 (2010): 1395-1414.) teaches a method for assembly sequence planning using geometric constraint analysis based on assembly angle and direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights