DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the application filed on September 7, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 26, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to for the following reason: Claim 9 recites “wherein receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure comprises causing the computer model to associate the at least one component with the feature of the.” It appears that the word “structure” is missing from the end of this claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises: applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible.” Claim 12 recites the same limitation. Paragraph 0028 of the Specification states:
At step 310, method 116 may proceed to match one or more attribute field(s) of the structural feature against one or more corresponding attribute fields for each the components present in library 124. By way of one example, method 116 may apply logic that compares nongeometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component. By way of another example, method 116 may apply logic that compares geometric attribute values of the structure against the geometric attribute values defined for each component. In some embodiments, such logic may utilize a predefined threshold to determine whether the component is compatible on the basis of particular attribute data, such as field pairs. The values of a component attribute field may be used as the threshold (e.g., the length from edge to hole on a face may have to be greater than a component's minimum distance hole to edge attribute value). In other embodiments, such logic may utilize an absolute or equivalent condition. For example, the logic may compare material type values.
According to the Specification, a threshold is used for geometric attribute comparisons while absolute or equivalent conditions are used for non-geometric attributes. However, the claim is stating that a threshold is being used for non-geometric attributes. Therefore, the claim is not consistent with what is disclosed in the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises: applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible.” Claim 12 recites the same limitation. The Specification uses “material type” as an example of a non-geometric attribute. However, it is not clear how a predefined threshold value can be used to identify whether a material type is compatible. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted according to paragraph 0028 of the Specification (“[S]uch logic may utilize an absolute or equivalent condition. For example, the logic may compare material type values.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-20, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1-12 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A method of assisting a designer with selecting a component compatible with a feature of a structure represented in a computer model, said method being carried out by a compatible components system programmed to carry out the steps of the method, the method comprising:
receiving a computer assisted design (CAD) model containing a representation of the structure, the representation of the structure further including the feature;
receiving an identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated;
retrieving attribute information of the feature;
identifying at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure as a function of the attribute information of the feature and attribute information of a plurality of candidate components, wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises:
applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible; and
displaying an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure;
receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the at least one component compatible further comprises: applying logic comprising additional rules individualized by a designer indicating a plurality of conditions regarding component compatibility, wherein the additional rules are retrieved from one or more candidate component libraries.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more candidate component libraries are stored on one or more databases.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising modifying the CAD model to include the chosen component combined with the feature.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein modifying the CAD model includes modifying a geometry of the CAD model as a function of the chosen component.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated comprises receiving a selection of a surface from the designer.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the attribute information comprises attribute fields and attribute values.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the attribute information of the feature comprises receiving the attribute information as a function of the CAD model.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure comprises causing the computer model to associate the at least one component with the feature of the [structure].
10. The method of claim 9, wherein said causing the computer model to associate the at least one component with the feature of the structure comprises causing the computer model to dynamically link the at least one component with the feature of the structure.
11. The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more candidate component libraries are modified by one or more hardware component suppliers.
12. A method of assisting a designer with selecting a component compatible with a feature of a structure represented in a computer model, said method being carried out by a compatible components system programmed to carry out the steps of the method, the method comprising:
receiving a computer assisted design (CAD) model containing a representation of the structure, the representation of the structure further including the feature;
receiving an identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated;
retrieving attribute information of the feature;
identifying at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure as a function of the attribute information of the feature and attribute information of a plurality of candidate components, wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises:
applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible;
transmitting an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure to computer modeling software; and
receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite mental processes. The claims are directed to selecting a component that is compatible with a structure. The limitations of receiving a CAD model, receiving an identification of the feature, and retrieving attribute information include observation. The limitations of identifying at least one component compatible with the feature and applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure include evaluation and judgment. The limitations of displaying an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure (claim 1) and transmitting an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure (claim 12) include judgment. The limitation of receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component includes opinion. But for the computer, the claimed process could be practically performed in the mind or on paper. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., a CAD environment. Employing well known technology within a CAD environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller et al., U.S. Patent Number 7,079,990 B2 and Limaiem et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,477,517 B1.
Claim 1:
Haller teaches:
receiving a computer assisted design (CAD) model containing a representation of the structure, the representation of the structure further including the feature (see at least Haller, Figure 2 and associated text; Figure 5A and associated text; column 7, lines 7-9 (“While a design engineer is building a model using a CAD software system, features are constructed with the intention that a particular part will connect to a particular feature.”); column 8, lines 12-15 (“To begin the procedure 600, a design engineer designs a feature that is intended as a receptacle for a particular part, and the design intent is made known to the modeling system (step 602).”).
receiving an identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated (see at least Haller, Figure 4 and associated text; column 7, lines 41-55 (“FIG. 4 shows the hole wizard tool's graphical user interface as extended to meet the requirements of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 4, a hole definition dialog box 402 displays a set of property names and one or more parameters for the properties. A parameter value may be chosen from a pull-down menu, such as the pull-down menu 404, that contains a list of acceptable values for the respective property. Pressing the Next button 406 instructs the system to continue creating the hole feature, which includes building a descriptor. The descriptor may be built by storing the parameters of one or more properties as feature attributes. The properties encapsulated in the descriptor may include a property that specifies an industry standard 408 (e.g., ANSI Inch, ISO, or DIN), and properties that specify a hole style 410, a fastener type 412, and a fastener size 414.”)).
retrieving attribute information of the feature (see at least Haller, Figure 4 and associated text; column 7, lines 14-20 (“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 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.”); column 7, lines 41-55 (“FIG. 4 shows the hole wizard tool's graphical user interface as extended to meet the requirements of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 4, a hole definition dialog box 402 displays a set of property names and one or more parameters for the properties. A parameter value may be chosen from a pull-down menu, such as the pull-down menu 404, that contains a list of acceptable values for the respective property. Pressing the Next button 406 instructs the system to continue creating the hole feature, which includes building a descriptor. The descriptor may be built by storing the parameters of one or more properties as feature attributes. The properties encapsulated in the descriptor may include a property that specifies an industry standard 408 (e.g., ANSI Inch, ISO, or DIN), and properties that specify a hole style 410, a fastener type 412, and a fastener size 414.”)).
identifying at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure as a function of the attribute information of the feature and attribute information of a plurality of candidate components, (see at least Haller, Figure 6, items 608, 610; column 7, lines 29-32 (“Thus, parts are selected from the parts library by matching (in whole or in part) attributes derived from a feature's descriptor with attributes of pre-defined standard parts models.”); column 11, lines 1-22).
displaying an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure (see at least Haller, Figure 6, item 614 and associated text; Figure 10B and associated text; Figure 10C and associated text).
receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure (see at least Haller, column 9, lines 1-8 (“The design engineer may accept the part by clicking a mouse button while the cursor is over the checkmark, or may reject the part by clicking a mouse button while the cursor is over the cross symbol.”)).
Haller does not explicitly teach, but Limaiem, however, does teach:
wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises: applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible (see at least Limaiem, Figure 6 and associated text; column 11, lines 4-10 (“In block 324, the methodology selects a component part and its parameters to be included within the model from the knowledge-based engineering library 12. One example of a component part is the skin 56 covering the instrument panel 50. Its attribute is the material type and characteristics substrate. Another example of a component part is the cross car support beam 102 and its attribute is material type.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Limaiem’s method of determining matching component parts based on non-geometric attributes such as material type with Haller’s construction of a model using a CAD system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of identifying a proper component. Haller teaches using geometric attributes. However, it would be obvious to use non-geometric attributes, as in Limaiem, in order to provide more flexibility in how compatible components are identified. Material type, for example, would be an important attribute for identifying compatible components.
Claim 2:
Haller further teaches:
wherein identifying the at least one component compatible further comprises: applying logic comprising additional rules individualized by a designer indicating a plurality of conditions regarding component compatibility, wherein the additional rules are retrieved from one or more candidate component libraries (see at least Haller, Figure 6, items 608, 610, 612; column 4, lines 37-42 (“Following construction of the feature, a part configured to compatibly couple with the feature is automatically identified based on design attributes of the feature. The part can be selected from a parts library that includes data representing parts and their geometric characteristics.”); column 7, lines 29-32 (“Thus, parts are selected from the parts library by matching (in whole or in part) attributes derived from a feature's descriptor with attributes of pre-defined standard parts models.”); column 11, lines 1-22).
Claim 3:
Haller further teaches:
wherein the one or more candidate component libraries are stored on one or more databases (see at least Haller, column 4, line 21 (“a database system”)).
Claim 4:
Haller further teaches:
modifying the CAD model to include the chosen component combined with the feature (see at least Haller, Figure 6, item 614; column 10, lines 43-49).
Claim 5:
Haller further teaches:
wherein modifying the CAD model includes modifying a geometry of the CAD model as a function of the chosen component (see at least Haller, column 12, lines 37-51; column 12, line 65 through column 13, line 6).
Claim 6:
Haller does not explicitly teach, but Limaiem, however, does teach:
wherein receiving the identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated comprises receiving a selection of a surface from the designer (see at least Limaiem, column 13, lines 14-16 (“For example, a characteristic may be the type of surface, such as class A.”); claim 7 (“wherein the second parameter is a feature defining a surface of the instrument panel from a feature library in the knowledge-based engineering library.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Limaiem’s “type of surface” with Haller’s construction of a model using a CAD system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of substituting the “hole” of Haller with the “surface” of Limaiem in order to identify a component that is compatible with a surface.
Claim 7:
Haller further teaches:
wherein the attribute information comprises attribute fields and attribute values (see at least Haller, Figure 4 and associated text; column 7, lines 14-20 (“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 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.”); column 7, lines 41-55 (“FIG. 4 shows the hole wizard tool's graphical user interface as extended to meet the requirements of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 4, a hole definition dialog box 402 displays a set of property names and one or more parameters for the properties. A parameter value may be chosen from a pull-down menu, such as the pull-down menu 404, that contains a list of acceptable values for the respective property. Pressing the Next button 406 instructs the system to continue creating the hole feature, which includes building a descriptor. The descriptor may be built by storing the parameters of one or more properties as feature attributes. The properties encapsulated in the descriptor may include a property that specifies an industry standard 408 (e.g., ANSI Inch, ISO, or DIN), and properties that specify a hole style 410, a fastener type 412, and a fastener size 414.”)).
Claim 8:
Haller further teaches:
wherein receiving the attribute information of the feature comprises receiving the attribute information as a function of the CAD model (see at least Haller, Figure 4 and associated text; column 3, lines 45-48 (“An example of automated feature creation is found in the SolidWorks® 2000 CAD system. Solidworks 2000 can automatically create holes using a feature generator known as the hole wizard tool.”); column 7, lines 41-55 (“FIG. 4 shows the hole wizard tool's graphical user interface as extended to meet the requirements of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 4, a hole definition dialog box 402 displays a set of property names and one or more parameters for the properties. A parameter value may be chosen from a pull-down menu, such as the pull-down menu 404, that contains a list of acceptable values for the respective property. Pressing the Next button 406 instructs the system to continue creating the hole feature, which includes building a descriptor. The descriptor may be built by storing the parameters of one or more properties as feature attributes. The properties encapsulated in the descriptor may include a property that specifies an industry standard 408 (e.g., ANSI Inch, ISO, or DIN), and properties that specify a hole style 410, a fastener type 412, and a fastener size 414.”)).
Claim 9:
Haller further teaches:
wherein receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure comprises causing the computer model to associate the at least one component with the feature of the [STRUCTURE] (see at least Haller, Figure 5B; Figure 6, item 614; column 9, lines 1-8 (“The design engineer may accept the part by clicking a mouse button while the cursor is over the checkmark, or may reject the part by clicking a mouse button while the cursor is over the cross symbol.”)).
Claim 10:
Haller further teaches:
wherein said causing the computer model to associate the at least one component with the feature of the structure comprises causing the computer model to dynamically link the at least one component with the feature of the structure (see at least Haller, Figure 5B; Figure 6, item 614; column 9, lines 1-8 (“The design engineer may accept the part by clicking a mouse button while the cursor is over the checkmark, or may reject the part by clicking a mouse button while the cursor is over the cross symbol.”)).
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1. The citation for the “transmitting” step is the same that is applied to the “displaying” step of claim 1.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haller et al., U.S. Patent Number 7,079,990 B2; Limaiem et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,477,517 B1; and O’Malley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0250236 A1.
Claim 11:
Haller does not explicitly teach, but O’Malley, however, does teach:
wherein the one or more candidate component libraries are modified by one or more hardware component suppliers (see at least O’Malley, paragraph 0035 (“One or more components in the 3D model 204 may be obtained from a component supplier (e.g., a manufacturer or a distributor of manufactured goods). The supplier may deliver CAD components on a compact disc. Additionally, the supplier may make CAD components available over the Internet, either directly from the supplier's web site or from a computer server managed by a third-party. The 3D PartStream.NET.RTM. service, available from SolidWorks Corporation of Concord, Mass., facilitates the delivery of 3D content (e.g., 3D geometry, parametric data, and supporting data structures) from suppliers to design engineers using on-line catalogs of 3D components. A design engineer may import a component into a computerized modeling system by, for example, simply specifying which file in the catalog to download to the computerized modeling system.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate O’Malley’s method of allowing a supplier to modify the catalogs of components with Haller’s construction of a model using a CAD system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of making sure that the design only includes parts that are available from the supplier.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,914,927 B2.
Instant Application – Claims 1 and 12
Patent Number 11,914,927 B2 (Application Number 16/927,176) – Claims 1 and 12
1. A method of assisting a designer with selecting a component compatible with a feature of a structure represented in a computer model, said method being carried out by a compatible components system programmed to carry out the steps of the method, the method comprising:
receiving a computer assisted design (CAD) model containing a representation of the structure, the representation of the structure further including the feature;
receiving an identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated;
retrieving attribute information of the feature;
identifying at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure as a function of the attribute information of the feature and attribute information of a plurality of candidate components, wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises:
applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible; and
displaying an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure;
receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure.
1. A method of assisting a designer with selecting a component compatible with a feature of a structure represented in a computer model, said method being carried out by a compatible components system programmed to carry out the steps of the method, the method comprising:
receiving a computer assisted design (CAD) model containing a representation of the structure, the representation of the structure further including the feature;
receiving an identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated;
retrieving attribute information of the feature;
from among a plurality of candidate components, identifying at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure as a function of the attribute information of the feature and attribute information of the plurality of candidate components, wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises:
applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible; and
applying logic comprising additional rules individualized by a designer indicating a plurality of conditions regarding component compatibility, wherein the additional rules are retrieved from a candidate component library;
displaying an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure;
receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure; and
modifying the CAD model to include the chosen component combined with the feature.
12. A method of assisting a designer with selecting a component compatible with a feature of a structure represented in a computer model, said method being carried out by a compatible components system programmed to carry out the steps of the method, the method comprising:
receiving a computer assisted design (CAD) model containing a representation of the structure, the representation of the structure further including the feature;
receiving an identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated;
retrieving attribute information of the feature;
identifying at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure as a function of the attribute information of the feature and attribute information of a plurality of candidate components, wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises:
applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible;
transmitting an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure to computer modeling software; and
receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure.
12. A method of assisting a designer with selecting a component compatible with a feature of a structure represented in a computer model, said method being carried out by a compatible components system programmed to carry out the steps of the method, the method comprising:
receiving a computer assisted design (CAD) model containing a representation of the structure, the representation of the structure further including the feature;
receiving an identification of the feature of the structure with which the component is to be associated;
retrieving attribute information of the feature;
from among a plurality of candidate components, identifying at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure as a function of the attribute information of the feature and attribute information of the plurality of candidate components, wherein identifying the at least one component compatible comprises:
applying logic that compares non-geometric attribute values of the structure against the non-geometric attribute values defined for each component, wherein logic utilizes predefined threshold values of the non-geometric attributes to identify whether the at least one component is compatible; and
applying logic comprising additional rules individualized by a designer indicating a plurality of conditions regarding component compatibility, wherein the additional rules are retrieved from a candidate component library;
transmitting an indication of the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure to computer modeling software;
receiving, from the designer, a selection of a chosen component from the at least one component compatible with the feature of the structure; and
modifying the CAD model to include the chosen component combined with the feature.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, the reference claim is not patentably distinct from instant claim 1 because each is drawn to the same invention. Claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by reference claims 1 and 12, respectively. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should file a Terminal Disclaimer or amend the claims. Upon double patenting being the only remaining rejection in this application, Examiner will review and update it, as appropriate, in light of the pending claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Gibson et al., U.S. Patent Number 8,645,107 B2. This reference teaches automatically adding constraints between entities in a subject CAD model.
Huynh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0103369 A1. This reference discusses geometric and non-geometric characteristics of a component.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights