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 .
Claims 1-15 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-15 are found not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Hiroaki Shibata (JPH11338529A).
Claims 2, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Hiroaki Shibata (JPH11338529A) further in the view of Zink; Joseph H. (US 6161079 A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Hiroaki Shibata (JPH11338529A) further in the view of Zink; Joseph H. (US 6161079 A) further in the view of Bae; Seockhoon (US 20080036755 A1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Hiroaki Shibata (JPH11338529A) further in the view of Zink; Joseph H. (US 6161079 A) further in the view of Nagoshi Atsushi (JP 2017-167808A).
Claims 6- 9 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
This action is non final rejection.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made for applicants claimed foreign priority date for application number of JP 2022-127395, filed on 08/09/2022, and English translation is needed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 09/18/2023 has been reviewed and considered. See the attached document.
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 limitations are:
“Data acquisition unit”,” extraction unit”, “rounding unit”, “conversion unit”, “output unit” in claim 1- 15.
“Storage unit” in claim 2, 10 and 12
“Reception unit” in claim 3, and 6-9
“Display control unit”, “display unit” in claim 5.
“Setting unit” in claim 11.
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.
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 1-15 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.
Specially claims discloses “Data acquisition unit”,” extraction unit”, “rounding unit”, “conversion unit”, “output unit” in claim 1- 15, “Storage unit” in claim 2, 10 and 12, “Reception unit” in claim 3, and 6-9, “Display control unit”, “display unit” in claim 5 and “Setting unit” in claim 11 lack specific structure identified in the specification. The specification does not appear to disclose any structure for the units for the apparatus claim. Therefore, what structure is included in these units is indefinite. These limitations are inherited in claims 1-15. See specific mapping for each module reference as recited in the specification in the rejection under 35 USC 112(a).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s)
contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor,
or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-15 are directed
to apparatus, however the units disclosed therein do not have structural support in the
Specification. The specification therefore lacks written description in view of citation for
each unit below.
Units invoking 112/6th
Lacking structure support in the specification
Data acquisition unit
[0073], [0074], [0101], [0198], [0201]
extraction unit
[0015] – [0019], [0073], [0074], [0077], [0078], [0082] – [0084], [0102], [0109], [0115], [0118] – [0121], [0134] – [0151], [0160], [0163], [0219], [0255], [0259]
rounding unit
[0013] – [0020], [0073], [0084], [0084], [0087], [0103], [0116], [0147], [0152], [0165], [0175], [0182], [0184] – [0193], [0202], [0220] - [0237], [0245] – [0286].
conversion unit
[0007], [0020], [0073], [0087], [0099], [0106], [0108], [0140], [0238], [0280].
output unit
[0073], [0108]
Reception unit
[0010] – [0015], [0073], [0076], [0086], [0090] – [0099], [0119], [0120], [0134], [0138], [0145], [0150], [0175], [0176], [0185]- [0196], [0202]- [0213], [0252],
Display control unit
[0012], [0072] – [0074], [0085], [0090], [0097], [0101], [0136], [0177], [0184], [0192]- [0196], [0202], [0202], [0210], [0213], [0234],
Setting unit
[0018], [0088], [0104], [0203] – [0213]
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention
recites a judicial exception, which is directed to judicial exception of an abstract idea, as
it has not been integrated into practical application, and the claim further does not recite
significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Yes, claims 1-15 are directed to apparatus, which is a manufacture, so it is
under a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Yes, the claims recite abstract idea. Claims 1-15 recite abstract ideas, which fall under a mathematical concept/ mental process. Abstract ideas are
bolded as shown below.
Regarding claim 1:
a data acquisition unit that acquires the mesh data - (insignificant extra-solution
activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
an that extracts geometric element data from the mesh data; under its broadest reasonable interpretation this claim recites a mental process, since a human mind can extract a geometric element from the point by connecting the points though observation and judgment.
a that executes rounding on a coordinate value or a dimensional value of the geometric element data extracted by the extraction unit; under its broadest reasonable interpretation this claim recites a mental process since a human mind can perform rounding of values of the geometric element using a simple mathematical concept with the aid of pen and paper.
a conversion unit that converts the geometric element data subjected to the rounding by the rounding unit into CAD data; (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
an output unit that outputs the CAD data converted by the conversion unit. (Insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
Step 2A: Prong 2: No
The above judicial exceptions do not recite additional elements that integrate
the exceptions into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not
have additional elements of 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.
Claims recite gathering data, outputting information and mere instruction to apply
an exception, which is insignificant extra solution activity. Adding insignificant extra-
solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a
law of nature or abstract ideas such as a step of obtaining information about credit card
transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as
discussed in CyberSource V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), and claims also recite data
manipulation by “displaying” outputs - Selecting information, based on types of
information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection,
analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-
55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(g).
As of claim 1: these limitations recite data gathering and mere instruction to apply an exception:
a data acquisition unit that acquires the mesh data - (insignificant extra-solution
activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
a conversion unit that converts the geometric element data subjected to the rounding by the rounding unit into CAD data; (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
an output unit that outputs the CAD data converted by the conversion unit. (Insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
Step 2B: No:
The claims do not cite additional elements which are significantly more than the
abstract idea. As outlined above claim 1 merely use different units as a tool to gather
data and to perform the abstract idea. As of claim 1 “Data acquisition unit”, “extraction unit”, “rounding unit”, “conversion unit” and “output unit” are additional elements but they are not significantly more since, they are used as a tool to perform the claimed invention. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the "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".
Claim 1 also recites insignificant extra activity of data gathering using “a data
acquisition unit that acquires…” and “an output unit that outputs …” which are
insignificant extra-solution activity – this is considered similar to the example WURC
activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: "iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)
(creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112
USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in
memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115
USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at
1092-93;... i. Recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. V. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d
1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);"
a conversion unit that converts the geometric element data subjected to the rounding by the rounding unit into CAD data; (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or
provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d in 1743.
Generally, the dependent claims inherently recite abstract ideas based on the
above analysis and let’s see if there are any significant more claim limitations exist for
the dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2:
a storage unit that stores the geometric element data before being subjected to rounding by the rounding unit as primary geometric element data, wherein the rounding unit executes rounding on the primary geometric element data stored in the storage unit and generate secondary geometric element data – insignificant extra solution such as “WURC” - MPEP 2106.05(d), iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Regarding claim 3:
A reception unit that receives selection of a conversion mode for executing conversion into CAD data from a first conversion mode of generating primary CAD data obtained by converting the primary geometric element data before the rounding into CAD data and a second conversion mode of generating secondary CAD data obtained by converting the secondary geometric element data after the rounding into CAD data - insignificant extra solution such as “WURC” - MPEP 2106.05(d), i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).
wherein the conversion unit executes the conversion into the CAD data based on the conversion mode received by the reception unit - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 4:
rounding unit executes the rounding with a number of significant digits to be processed that is coarser than a first number of significant digits which is the number of significant digits in workpiece measurement – it further defines abstract idea of rounding and no additional element which is significant more recited.
Regarding claim 5:
a display control unit that causes a display unit to display a three dimensional shape based on the mesh data wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the three dimensional shape with display resolution of a second number of significant digits which is a number of significant digits of the display unit – it recites an additional element of a display control unit but is merely used as a tool, so there is no additional element which is significant more.
the rounding unit executes the rounding with a number of significant digits to be processed that is coarser than the second number of significant digits - it further defines abstract idea of rounding and no additional element which is significant more.
Regarding claim 6:
the reception unit receives inputs of a design value and a tolerance corresponding to the workpiece - insignificant extra solution such as “WURC” - MPEP 2106.05(d), i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network….
the rounding unit determines whether to execute the rounding based on whether a difference value between the primary geometric element data and the design value is larger than the tolerance, and - it further defines the abstract idea of rounding, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the conversion unit converts the primary geometric element data into the primary CAD data in the first conversion mode in a case where it is determined that the difference value between the primary geometric element data and the design value is larger than the tolerance by the determination - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
converts the secondary geometric element data into the secondary CAD data in the second conversion mode in a case where it is determined that the difference value between the primary geometric element data and the design value is smaller than the tolerance by the determination - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 7:
the reception unit receives inputs of a design value and a tolerance corresponding to the workpiece - insignificant extra solution such as “WURC” - MPEP 2106.05(d), i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network….
the rounding unit determines whether to execute the rounding based on whether a difference value between the primary geometric element data and the design value is larger than the tolerance, and - it further defines the abstract idea of rounding, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the conversion unit converts the primary geometric element data into the primary CAD data in the first conversion mode in a case where the rounding unit determines that the difference value between the primary geometric element data - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
the design value is smaller than the tolerance by the determination, and – it further defines the data gathered, so no additional element which is significantly more.
converts the secondary geometric element data into the secondary CAD data in the second conversion mode in a case where the rounding unit determines that the difference value between the primary geometric element data and the design value is larger than the tolerance - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 8:
the reception unit receives an input of an allowable degree corresponding to the geometric element data - insignificant extra solution such as “WURC” - MPEP 2106.05(d), i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network….
the extraction unit extracts a plurality of pieces of geometric element data from the mesh data – it further defines abstract idea and no additional element which is significantly more.
the rounding unit determines, for each of the plurality of pieces of geometric element data, whether a difference between the coordinate value or the dimensional value of the secondary geometric element data and the coordinate value or the dimensional value of the primary geometric element data is larger than the allowable degree, - it further defines the abstract idea of rounding , so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the conversion unit converts the primary geometric element data for which the difference is determined to be larger than the allowable degree by the rounding unit into the primary CAD data in the first conversion mode, and converts the secondary geometric element data for which the difference is determined to be smaller than the allowable degree by the rounding unit into the secondary CAD data in the second conversion mode - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 9:
the reception unit receives an input of an allowable degree corresponding to the geometric element data - insignificant extra solution such as “WURC” - MPEP 2106.05(d), i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network….
the extraction unit extracts a plurality of pieces of geometric element data from the mesh data - it further defines abstract idea and no additional element which is significantly more.
the rounding unit determines, for each of the plurality of pieces of geometric element data, whether a difference between the coordinate value or the dimensional value of the secondary geometric element data and the coordinate value or the dimensional value of the primary geometric element data is larger than the allowable degree, and - it further defines the abstract idea of rounding , so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the conversion unit converts the primary geometric element data for which the difference is determined to be smaller than the allowable degree by the rounding unit into the primary C AD data in the first conversion mode, and converts the secondary geometric element data for which the difference is determined to be larger than the allowable degree by the rounding unit into the secondary CAD data in the second conversion mode - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 10:
the storage unit stores a reference table in which a plurality of types of geometric element data are associated with information on whether to execute rounding on coordinate values and dimensional values of the plurality of types of geometric element data, and - insignificant extra solution such as “WURC” - MPEP 2106.05(d), iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
the rounding unit specifies a target to be subjected to the rounding based on the reference table stored in the storage unit, acquires at least one of a coordinate value or a dimensional value corresponding to the specified target, and executes the rounding - it further defines abstract idea of rounding based on criterion, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 11:
a setting unit configured to make a setting of information of the reference table,
where in the information of the reference table is updated according to the setting of the information of the reference table made by the setting unit - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Regarding claim 12:
the extraction unit extracts a plurality of pieces of geometric element data from the mesh data - it further defines abstract idea and no additional element which is significantly more.
the storage unit stores a processing setting table in which the plurality of pieces of geometric element data extracted by the extraction unit and reference values of the rounding are associated for each piece of the geometric element data, and - insignificant extra solution such as “WURC” - MPEP 2106.05(d), iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
the rounding unit refers to the processing setting table stored in the storage unit, acquires a reference value corresponding to geometric element data for which the rounding is to be executed, and executes the rounding on at least one of the coordinate value or the dimensional value based on the acquired reference value – it further defines the abstract idea of rounding and acquiring of information which is a data gathering, so there is no additional element which is significant more.
Regarding claim 13:
the processing setting table has an execution determination value used to determine whether to execute the rounding for each piece of the geometric element data, and – it further defines abstract idea, and no additional element which is significantly more is recited.
the rounding unit determines whether to execute the rounding based on the execution determination value of the processing setting table and – it further defines the abstract idea of rounding, and there is no addition al element which is significantly more.
executes the rounding for the geometric element data for which it has been determined to execute the rounding by the determination – it further defines the abstract idea of rounding based in a criterion, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 14:
the conversion unit converts the secondary geometric element data subjected to the rounding into the secondary CAD data for the geometric element data for which it has been determined to execute the rounding based on the execution determination value, and - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
converts the primary geometric element data into the primary CAD data for the geometric element data for which it has been determined not to execute the rounding based on the execution determination value, and - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
the output unit outputs CAD data in which the primary CAD data and the secondary CAD data are assembled - Insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 15:
the conversion unit converts at least one piece of primary geometric element data into the primary CAD data and converts at least one piece of secondary geometric element data into the secondary CAD data - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
the output unit outputs CAD data in which the primary CAD data and the secondary CAD data are assembled - - Insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Generally, based on the above claim by claim analysis and claims as a whole,
the claims do not recite any additional element which is significantly more than the
abstract idea of the claimed invention. The claim is merely a mental process, and
different units are merely used as a tool, so they are not significantly more
than abstract idea since there is no improvement in the recited units or improvement on
the recited technology. "Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement
without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the
examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Therefore claims 1-15 are 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Hiroaki Shibata (JPH11338529A).
As of claim 1, Yashiki teaches A reverse engineering support apparatus that converts mesh data obtained by measuring a three-dimensional shape of a workpiece into CAD data and outputs the CAD data, the reverse engineering support apparatus comprising (Section 1, “introduction”, Therefore, in this study, with the aim of realizing reverse engineering, we focus on mechanical parts and aim to extract features from measurement data to generate CAD data. In this paper, we propose a method for extracting features that satisfy the constraints mentioned above, targeting basic features (planes, cylindrical surfaces, and conical surfaces). We also apply this method to actual mechanical parts to verify its effectiveness… section 2, “CAD data generation method”, To extract feature information (planes, cylindrical surfaces, and conical surfaces) from triangular polygon data (measurement data), this study employs the "Surface Region Expansion Method)
a data acquisition unit that acquires the mesh data; (section 4.2 “Application Example to Mechanical Parts”, Measurements were performed using an X-ray CT device on the mechanical part shown in Figure 5(a), and the proposed method was applied to the triangular polygon data obtained from the measurements (Figure 5(b)) to generate CAD data containing features (Figure S(c))).
an extraction unit that extracts geometric element data from the mesh data; (section, 2. “CAD Data Generation Method”). The initial values of the feature's geometric parameters are determined from the seed points. Here, "shape parameters" refer to the parameters used to define the shape of a feature (Table 1).
Yashiki does not explicitly teach a rounding unit that executes rounding on a coordinate value or a dimensional value of the geometric element data extracted by the extraction unit; a conversion unit that converts the geometric element data subjected to the rounding by the rounding unit into CAD data; and an output unit that outputs the CAD data converted by the conversion unit.
While Hiroaki teaches a rounding unit that executes rounding on a coordinate value or a dimensional value of the geometric element data extracted by the extraction unit; ([0011], Normally, the number of significant digits is limited to the NC data command operable in the processing machine body. For this reason, for example, the X coordinate command of the starting point coordinates of the slot element 5C is rounded off to the fourth digit (submicron) after the decimal point and is 56.180 as shown in the line starting with N14. NC data is created. As described above, a dimensional error occurs due to rounding when converting to NC data depending on the shape).
a conversion unit that converts the geometric element data subjected to the rounding by the rounding unit into CAD data; and ([0012], Similarly, the X coordinate becomes an indivisible number at each of the starting point coordinate position of the elongated hole element 5D, the starting point coordinate position of the elongated hole element 5E, and the starting point coordinate position of the elongated hole element 5F, and is converted into NC data. In this case, dimensional errors occur due to rounding. For example, in FIG. 10, the X coordinate command “X56.18” for the line starting with N14, the X coordinate command “X33.82” for the line starting with N15, the I coordinate command “I11.18” for the line starting with N16, and N17 The X coordinate command “X56.18” or the like in the starting line is a portion where a dimensional error occurs due to rounding).
an output unit that outputs the CAD data converted by the conversion unit. ([0048], Converts all NC data into graphic data based on the set calculation method, and proceeds to step S3. In step S3, the display unit 3 displays an image of the processed shape based on the graphic data. The operator confirms the processed shape and edits it if necessary. In step S4, the NC data creation unit 4 converts the figure data of the determined machining shape into NC data and outputs the NC data).
Yashiki and Hiroaki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, since they focus on data conversion methods. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date to integrate Hiroaki’s teaching of rounding coordinate values and generate NC data using Yashiki data acquired from mesh data and extracted geometrical elements.
The motivation would have been to create effective and valid methods to
extract features from measurement data to generate CAD data, extracting
features that satisfy the constraints mentioned above, targeting basic features
(planes, cylindrical surfaces, and conical surfaces) (Yashiki, abstract,
Introduction) and the data conversion method according to the present invention, the operator can easily select one or a plurality of operation methods from among the plurality of operation methods. Since it can be set or changed, it is possible to obtain a specified figure, and the reliability of the device is improved (Hiroaki, [0056].
As of claim 4, the modified model of Yashiki-Hiroaki teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Hiroaki also teaches rounding unit executes the rounding with a number of significant digits to be processed that is coarser than a first number of significant digits which is the number of significant digits in workpiece measurement ([0011] – [0012], Normally, the number of significant digits is limited to the NC data command operable in the processing machine body. For this reason, for example, the X coordinate command of the starting point coordinates of the slot element 5C is rounded off to the fourth digit (submicron) after the decimal point and is 56.180 as shown in the line starting with N14. NC data is created. As described above, a dimensional error occurs due to rounding when converting to NC data depending on the shape. Similarly, the X coordinate becomes an indivisible number at each of the starting point coordinate position of the elongated hole element 5D, the starting point coordinate position of the elongated hole element 5E, and the starting point coordinate position of the elongated hole element 5F and is converted into NC data. Inthis case, dimensional errors occur due to rounding. For example, in FIG. 10, the X coordinate command “X56.18” for the line starting with N14, the X coordinate command “X33.82” for the line starting with N15, the I coordinate command “I11.18” for the line starting with N16, and N17 The X coordinate command “X56.18” or the like in the starting line is a portion where a dimensional error occurs due to rounding).
Claims 2, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Hiroaki Shibata (JPH11338529A) further in the view of Zink; Joseph H. (US 6161079 A).
As of claim 2, the modified model of Yashiki -Hiroaki teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2.
While Zink teaches a storage unit that stores the geometric element data before being subjected to rounding by the rounding unit as primary geometric element data, wherein the rounding unit executes rounding on the primary geometric element data stored in the storage unit and generate secondary geometric element data (Col. 6 line 17 -30, FIG. 2D is another screen display 70 in the Program Mode. This display, however, illustrates the format of the measurement report 72. In this example, the type of feature being measured is the PLANE shown at 74, using part characteristic measurements X, Y, Z, I, J, K at 76. Note that each characteristic measurement has a series of columns to report the data: the ACTUAL measured value in 78, a NOMINAL value in 80, a plus tolerance value +TOL in 82, a minus tolerance value -TOL in 84, a calculated deviation DEV in 86, and an out-of-tolerance indication OUT-TOL in 88. These values are all zero in this display, since the measurement has not taken place.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2E). The actual value is interpreted as the primary and the nominal value are interpreted as a secondary geometric element data.
Zink is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches determining tolerance and nominal measurement values for coordinate measuring machines. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Zink teaching of storing both before rounding and after rounding of the geometrical element data into the modified model to store the geometrical element which are extracted in the modified model before and after rounding is performed.
The motivation would have been technique of the present invention makes it much easier for the operator to measure the part and produce a report, since it significantly reduces the amount of operator keystroke information required to be manually input via the keyboard (Zink, abstract).
As of claim 5, the modified model of Yashiki – Hiroaki teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Hiroaki also teaches a display control unit that causes a display unit to display a three dimensional shape based on the mesh data ([0003], In step S3, the display unit 3 displays an image of the processed shape based on the graphic data. The operator confirms the processed shape and edits it if necessary. In step S4, the NC data creating unit 4 converts the figure data of the determined processed shape into NC data and outputs the NC data).
The modified model does not explicitly teach wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the three dimensional shape with display resolution of a second number of significant digits which is a number of significant digits of the display unit, and the rounding unit executes the rounding with a number of significant digits to be processed that is coarser than the second number of significant digits.
While Zink teaches wherein the display control unit causes the display unit to display the three dimensional shape with display resolution of a second number of significant digits which is a number of significant digits of the display unit, and (Fig. 2D -2F, Col 6, line 17- 50, FIG. 2D is another screen display 70 in the Program Mode. This display, however, illustrates the format of the measurement report 72. In this example, the type of feature being measured is the PLANE shown at 74, using part characteristic measurements X, Y, Z, I, J, K at 76. Note that each characteristic measurement has a series of columns to report the data: the ACTUAL measured value in 78, a NOMINAL value in 80. FIG. 2F is a representative screen display 94 in the Setup Mode. Note that the last screen entry 96, labeled Tolerance "Guess", indicates that the nominal value estimation feature of the present invention has been activated).
the rounding unit executes the rounding with a number of significant digits to be processed that is coarser than the second number of significant digits (Col. 8 line 45- 53, For example, if a circle is measured, the associated tolerance scheme may indicate that the circle feature has two significant digits to the right of the decimal point, i.e., "X.XX". The index value for this feature would be 2, such that the tolerance for X.XX is 0.020 inches. Therefore, for each part characteristic (such as the X-Y-Z location of the center, the diameter, and the circle form) that is reported for the circle part feature, the tolerance value of 0.020 inches is used).
Zink is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches determining tolerance and nominal measurement values for coordinating measuring machine. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Zink teaching of display the 3D shape with a 2 significant digit into the modified model to display the three-dimensional shape using the display unit.
The motivation would have been technique of the present invention makes it much easier for the operator to measure the part and produce a report, since it significantly reduces the amount of operator keystroke information required to be manually input via the keyboard (Zink, abstract).
As of claim 10, the modified model of Yashiki – Hiroaki- Zink teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and Zink also teaches the storage unit stores a reference table in which a plurality of types of geometric element data are associated with information on whether to execute rounding on coordinate values and dimensional values of the plurality of types of geometric element data, and (Col 8 line 54- 65, The estimate for the nominal value is based on the following two assumptions: (1) that most features are close to being in-tolerance; and (2) that the nominal measurement value is some "rounded number". As used herein, a "rounded number" refers to a number or fraction that would commonly be found on an engineering drawing for a nominal value of a part, typically ending with a X.0, X.1, X.5, X.25, X.125, etc., or having a least significant digit of 0, 1, or 5. Examples of "rounded numbers" would be 10, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.025, 0.01, 0.005, 0.0025, and 0.001. Examples of numbers that would not be considered "rounded numbers" would be 9.88, 1.001, 0.32, and 0.0024
PNG
media_image1.png
275
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2E and Fig. 2D for a plurality of geometric element). As is shown above on figure 2E, the geometrical element of line is stored as a table with actual and rounded value. For example, for a type of name x—z, rounding is performed and for i-k rounding is not performed.
the rounding unit specifies a target to be subjected to the rounding based on the reference table stored in the storage unit, acquires at least one of a coordinate value or a dimensional value corresponding to the specified target, and executes the rounding (Col 3. Line 1-11, In the first step of the process, the operator fills out a tolerance scheme screen to associate a tolerance value or precision setting for each part feature with one, two, and three significant digits (and a setting for the angular features). This step is similar to the procedure performed by the part designer for the engineering drawing. In the second step of the process, a software estimation routine is used to estimate the nominal value, given the actual measured value and the stored tolerance schemes. The estimation routine is based on the assumptions that the majority of the feature measurements are fairly close to being in-tolerance, and that the nominal value is a "rounded number" (i.e., typical nominal numbers used in machining parts)…Col 8 line 54 – 67, The estimate for the nominal value is based on the following two assumptions: (1) that most features are close to being in-tolerance; and (2) that the nominal measurement value is some "rounded number". As used herein, a "rounded number" refers to a number or fraction that would commonly be found on an engineering drawing for a nominal value of a part, typically ending with a X.0, X.1, X.5, X.25, X.125, etc., or having a least significant digit of 0, 1, or 5. Examples of "rounded numbers" would be 10, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.025, 0.01, 0.005, 0.0025, and 0.001. Examples of numbers that would not be considered "rounded numbers" would be 9.88, 1.001, 0.32, and 0.0024. Based on these two assumptions, the estimated nominal value is determined by calling the "best guess" routine in the software. FIG. 4 is a software program flowchart illustrating the general sequence of operations performed by the PC for this nominal value estimating routine). As cited above, tolerance schemes stored in the computer are used as specified target to make a rounding based on the rounding criterion and it also performs rounding based on the list significant digit.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Hiroaki Shibata (JPH11338529A) further in the view of Zink; Joseph H. (US 6161079 A) further in the view of Bae; Seockhoon (US 20080036755 A1).
As of claim 3, the modified model of Yashiki- Hiroaki- Zink teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3.
While Bae teaches A reception unit that receives selection of a conversion mode for executing conversion into CAD data from a first conversion mode of generating primary CAD data obtained by converting the primary geometric element data before the rounding into CAD data and a second conversion mode of generating secondary CAD data obtained by converting the secondary geometric element data after the rounding into CAD data, ([0057], FIGS. 13A-13C show the use of the accuracy analyzer facility with a CAD part while FIGS. 14A-14C show the process of adjusting CAD parameters to minimize accuracy loss. The deviation of the CAD solid model from the original/starting scan data is frequently quite large. FIG. 13A depicts the original/starting scan data 1300 while FIG. 13B shows the solid model 1310 that is generated based on the scan data. FIG. 13C shows a displayed error map 1320 that may be generated by the accuracy analyzer facility 5 of the present invention to show the deviation between the original scan data 1300 and the solid model 1310…[0058] The accuracy analyzer facility 5 may run an optimization routine, such as an error-minimization routine, to adjust the parameters of the CAD solid 1310 (for example the height, width and position of the sketch profile 1400 for the extrusion as shown in FIG. 14A). The dimensions are adjusted in order to minimize the total error and adopt the best parameters for the CAD model). As it is cited above Fig. 13A- 13c are considered as the CAD model created before error minimization is performed so it is considered as the first conversation mode and Fig. 14A-14C are considered as a second CAD data sisincerror minimization is applied). As listed above figs. 13A-13C is interpreted as the first CAD data (before rounding) and figs 14a-14c is interpreted as the second CAD data (after rounding).
wherein the conversion unit executes the conversion into the CAD data based on the conversion mode received by the reception unit ([0007], The embodiments provide a mechanism that continually updates the user on the effect ongoing reverse engineering procedures have on scan data accuracy. The present invention opens raw 3D scan data so that the user can start scan data editing or CAD remodeling. The user can set a parameter that controls the total allowance, the amount of allowable error. The allowance indicates the maximum distance deviation between the original raw scan data and the final reverse engineered CAD model or the edited scan data).
Bae is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches analyzing modeling accuracy while performing reverse engineering with 3d scan data. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Bae’s teaching of creating a CAD model after and before error minimization is performed into the modified model to create a CAD model before and after perform rounding as the modified model teaches.
The motivation would have been to improve the accuracy of reverse engineering by adjusting parameters programmatically based on the amount of accuracy loss determined to be attributable to scan data editing or CAD remodeling operations (Bae, abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Hiroaki Shibata (JPH11338529A) further in the view of Zink; Joseph H. (US 6161079 A) further in the view of Nagoshi Atsushi (JP 2017-167808A).
As of claim 15, the modified model of Yashiki-Hiroaki -Zink teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and Yashiki also teaches the conversion unit converts at least one piece of primary geometric element data into the primary CAD data and (abstract, This paper proposes a new method for constructing CAD data from 3D sensed data for the purpose of realizing reverse engineering…section 4.2 “Application Example to Mechanical Parts”, the proposed method was applied to the triangular polygon data obtained from the measurements (Figure 5(b)) to generate CAD data containing features (Figure S(c)).
The modified model does not explicitly teach converts at least one piece of secondary geometric element data into the secondary CAD data, and the output unit outputs CAD data in which the primary CAD data and the secondary CAD data are assembled.
While Nagoshi teaches converts at least one piece of secondary geometric element data into the secondary CAD data, ([0037], Subsequently, component B is scanned by scanner 2, and its image data is stored in the storage unit 5 of the image processing device 3. Furthermore, the vehicle member W, after component B has been removed, is also scanned by scanner 2, and its image data (hereinafter referred to as "second image data of the vehicle member") is stored in the storage unit 5 … [0040]
Once all components A to C are disassembled and image data is acquired individually by scanner 2, the image processing device 3 converts the image data into CAD data using the arithmetic processing unit 4).
and the output unit outputs CAD data in which the primary CAD data and the secondary CAD data are assembled ([0041], The CAD data includes CAD data W1 corresponding to the first image data of the vehicle component W (hereinafter referred to as "first CAD data of the vehicle component"), CAD data W2 corresponding to the second image data of the vehicle component W (hereinafter referred to as "second CAD data of the vehicle component"), and individual CAD data for each component A to C).
Nagoshi considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches acquiring three-dimensional data of vehicle components by reverse engineering.
Therefore, it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date based on Nagashi’s teaching of outputting CAD data and
converting a plurality of vehicle components CAD data into a combined one CAD
data, on the modified model to output CAD data of the primary and secondary CAD data assembled.
The motivation would have been to provide a three-dimensional data creation method that can accurately acquire three-dimensional data of vehicle components consisting of a large number of components to achieve highly accurate structural analysis of a vehicle component, by acquire detailed three- dimensional data for each component of the vehicle component (Nagoshi, [0006]– [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6- 9 and 11- 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim, any intervening claims and if it overcomes claim rejections cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O'Hare; Jonathan (US 20130030773 A1, Date Published, 2013-01-31) is similar to the claimed invention since it teaches a computer-implemented method includes receiving tolerance information for a geometric characteristic to be inspected on a geometric feature, and receiving coordinate measurement data associated with a measurement of the physical feature. The method also includes using a computer-implemented system to determine an algorithm for reducing the coordinate measurement data, wherein the determination of the algorithm is based at least in part on the tolerance information for the geometric characteristic.
HORII SHINGO (JP 2014115886 A, Date Published, 2014-06-26) is similar to the claimed invention since it teaches the measured dimension value is changed to a dimension value that is changed when effective digit rounding processing is performed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
