DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 12 September 2023 are accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract includes phrases which can be implied.
Examiner suggests amending the abstract to recite:
A computer system and method for managing a geometric design created using a CAD tool
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “A computer-readable medium)”. The end-parenthesis appears to be typographic error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the machine-comprehensible graph data model generated based on ….” There is a lack of antecedent basis for a generated machine-comprehensible graph data model. The claim 1 clause 1 recites “a request for generating a machine-comprehensible graph data model” but nowhere does claim 1 recite generating a machine-comprehensible graph data model.
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 last clause to recite “ generating, by the processor, the machine-comprehensible graph data model and providing the generated machine-comprehensible graph data model to the requesting entity.”
Dependent claims 2-15 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Transitory Media
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP §2106.03.
Claim 14 is directed to “A computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device.” Computer-readable hardware storage devices can encompass non-statutory, transitory forms of signal transmission, such as, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. MPEP §2106.03; See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Examiner recommends amending the claim preamble to recite 'non-transitory' to overcome this rejection. See MPEP §2106.03 and 1351 OG 212 Kappos memo titled “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” (Feb. 23, 2010).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Software per se
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter in the form of software per se. See MPEP §2106.03.
Claim 15 is directed to “A computer-readable medium) comprising a computer program product comprising computer program code. Computer program code is reasonably interpreted as software per se. Claim 15, taken as a whole, fails to include a particular machine (hardware component) or otherwise limit the claims to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Each component can reasonably be interpreted as software. Software, by itself, is nonstatutory subject matter. See MPEP §2106.03(I). Software is not one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Accordingly, when all of the components are interpreted as software, claim 15 is directed to software per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Abstract Idea
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 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A computer-implemented method for managing a geometric design created using a Computer-Aided Design tool, the method comprising:
receiving, …, a request for generating a machine-comprehensible graph data model corresponding to the geometric design created using the Computer-Aided Design tool, from a requesting entity;
parsing, …, a plurality of features associated with the geometric design to identify a set of first attributes indicative of a design intent, wherein one or more of the features are associated with at least one sketch used for creation of the geometric design and at least one operation performed on the at least one sketch;
analyzing, …, the at least one sketch to compute a set of second attributes indicative of a vector representation of the at least one sketch; and
…, …, the machine-comprehensible graph data model generated based on the set of first attributes and the set of second attributes, ….
Managing a geometric design is a process capable of being performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Receiving a request encompasses mental processes in the form or observation or listening to a request which is made by the entity.
Parsing features of the geometric design corresponds with mental process evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Analyzing the sketch to computer attributes of a vector representation correspond with mental process evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. For example, observing the sketch and determining a proper orientation for the sketch is mental process evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion capable of being performed mentally.
Generating some form of graph data model based on the attributes is capable of being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
by a processor,
…
providing, … to the requesting entity.
The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Providing the model to the requesting entity corresponds with a non-specific outputting including a generic data transmission or printing of the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
Regarding generic outputting, MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
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);
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)
These transmitting data and storing information examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of ‘providing’ recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the geometric design is at least one of a two-dimensional design and a three-dimensional design.
The dimensions of the evaluated design is a generic linking to a field of use. Both 2D and 3D geometric designs are capable of being parsed and analyzed mentally. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the set of first attributes comprises one or more of a label, an expression, a setting, a parent feature, and a child feature associated with each of the features.
Labels, expressions, settings, and features are capable of being evaluated mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein parsing the plurality of feature associated with the geometric design to identify the first set of attributes comprises:
parsing, …, a model tree comprising the plurality of features associated with the geometric design in the Computer-Aided Design tool, …, to extract one or more first attributes corresponding to each of the features, wherein the model tree is a hierarchical data structure of the features arranged in an order of creation of the features.
Parsing a hierarchical model tree to identify and extract attributes corresponds with mental processes in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
by the processor, …, using an application programming interface
The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the set of second attributes comprises one or more of a shape embedding indicative of a shape associated with the at least one sketch, a dimension embedding indicative of a scale of the at least one sketch, and a normal vector to the at least one sketch.
Analyzing a shape, dimension, or normal vector corresponds with mental process steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method according to claim 5, wherein analyzing the at least one sketch to compute the second set of attributes indicative of the vector representation of the at least one sketch comprises:
generating, …, at least one bounding box around the at least one sketch in the image, using a second computer vision model; and
computing, …, the dimension embedding corresponding to the at least one sketch based on spatial coordinates of the bounding box.
Generating and computing a bounding box around a sketch is capable of being considered mentally in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
by the processor
The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method according to claim 5, wherein the normal vector to the at least one sketch is computed using a predefined function.
Analyzing a normal vector is capable of being considered mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Applying a mathematical function, such as mathematical relationships related to the normal vector definition, incorporates mathematical subject matter which is another category of abstract idea.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein providing the machine-comprehensible graph data model generated based on the set of first attributes and the set of second attributes, to the requesting entity, comprises:
mapping, …, the set of first attributes and the set of second attributes to a predefined ontology;
generating, …, triples based on the mapping of the set of first attributes and the set of second attributes to the predefined ontology, wherein the triples form the machine-comprehensible graph data model of the geometric design; and
Mapping attributes to an non-specific ontology corresponds with organizing attributes according to some form of organizing principle. Deciding to organize the attributes in sets of three (triples) to form the graph data model is an analysis which is capable of being performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
by the processor, …
storing, …, the triples to a graph database, wherein the graph database is accessible by the requesting entity.
The processor and database are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Storing the data in a database corresponds with a non-specific outputting including a generic data transmission of the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
Regarding generic outputting, MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
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);
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)
These transmitting data and storing information examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of ‘storing’ recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the graph data model is a property graph.
A property graph is capable of being considered mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
11. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: providing, by the processor, a graphical representation of the graph data model on a user-interface.
Providing a graphical representation of the graph data model corresponds with a generic outputting to display the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The processor and user-interface are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
Regarding generic outputting, MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
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);
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)
These transmitting data and storing information examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of ‘providing’ recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
12. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: using, …, the graph data model to identify similarity of the geometric design to a subsequent geometric design.
Identifying similarity of geometric design, including by calculation of cosine similarity, is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
by the processor
The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 13 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
13. A computer system arranged and configured to execute the steps of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
The computer system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 13 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 14 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 14 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
14. A computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method of claim 1.
The computer system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 14 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
15. A computer-readable medium) comprising a computer program product comprising computer program code which, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to carry out the method of claim 1.
The computer system and program code is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Eligible Claim 6
Claim 6 recites “applying, by the processor, a first computer vision model to an image of the at least one sketch to generate the shape embedding of the at least one sketch.” Applying a computer vision model to generate a shape embedding is too complex to be practical to perform in the human mind. Accordingly, Examiner finds claim 6 is eligible subject matter under §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-15
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0061980 A1 Mezghanni, et al. [herein “Mezghanni”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A computer-implemented method for managing a geometric design created using a Computer-Aided Design tool.” Mezghanni paragraph 4 disclose “improved solutions for CAD object retrieval and similarity evaluation between CAD objects.” Retrieving and evaluating similarity of CAD objects corresponds with managing geometric CAD designs.
Claim 1 recites a plurality of times “by a processor.” Mezghanni paragraph 124 disclose “The system may comprise a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface (GUI), the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing the method.”
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising: receiving, …, a request for generating a machine-comprehensible graph data model corresponding to the geometric design created using the Computer-Aided Design tool, from a requesting entity.” Mezghanni paragraph 108 discloses “The method of use may be for CAD object retrieval in a database through topological similarity search.” Mezghanni paragraphs 109-112 disclose:
[0109] providing:
[0110] a given B-rep graph of a given B-rep;
…
[0112] applying the neural network to the given B-rep graph, thereby obtaining a signature of the given B-rep;
Providing the given B-rep model for CAD object retrieval using topological similarity search corresponds with submitting a respective request for generating a machine-comprehensible graph data model for the given B-rep model CAD object.
Claim 1 further recites “parsing, …, a plurality of features associated with the geometric design to identify a set of first attributes indicative of a design intent, wherein one or more of the features are associated with at least one sketch used for creation of the geometric design and at least one operation performed on the at least one sketch.” Mezghanni paragraph 54 disclose:
This means that for each edge of the B-rep, there is a respective graph node, for each face of the B-rep, there is a respective graph node, and for each co-edge of the B-rep, there is a respective graph node. Each graph node further comprises a geometrical and/or topological feature associated with (i.e., attached to) the graph nodes. The feature is data, for example a vector (also referred to as feature vector), associated with the node and describing geometrical data and/or topological data characterizing the B-rep element represented by the graph nodes.
The B-rep corresponding graph node feature vectors correspond with the claimed plurality of features parsed from the geometric design. The nodes and feature vectors correspond with identified first attributes.
Claim 1 further recites “analyzing, …, the at least one sketch to compute a set of second attributes indicative of a vector representation of the at least one sketch.” Mezghanni paragraph 37 discloses “The topological signature of the B-rep is a vector outputted by the Deep CAD neural network further to the processing of the input B-rep graph by the neural network's layers, and thereby forms a vector representation of the input B-rep graph.” The output vector representation corresponds with vector representation of the sketch.
Claim 1 further recites “and providing, …, the machine-comprehensible graph data model generated based on the set of first attributes and the set of second attributes, to the requesting entity.” Mezghanni paragraph 67 disclose “The topological signature is an embedding vector that the neural network outputs for the input B-rep and that captures the topology of the underlying B-rep.” Outputting the topological signature corresponds with providing the machine-comprehensible graph data model to the requesting entity.
Claim 2 further recites “2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the geometric design is at least one of a two-dimensional design and a three-dimensional design.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a three-dimensional design.”
Mezghanni paragraph 50 disclose “The B-rep (i.e., boundary representation) is a 3D representation of a mechanical part.”
Claim 3 further recites “3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the set of first attributes comprises one or more of a label, an expression, a setting, a parent feature, and a child feature associated with each of the features.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a parent feature.”
Mezghanni paragraph 53 disclose “The co-edges link the B-rep entities altogether. Each co-edge has one parent face (i.e., the face for which it defines a bound), one parent edge, (i.e., by definition a co-edge is an oriented edge and thus has a parent edge).” The parent face and parent edges correspond with parent features.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the set of second attributes comprises one or more of a shape embedding indicative of a shape associated with the at least one sketch, a dimension embedding indicative of a scale of the at least one sketch, and a normal vector to the at least one sketch.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a shape embedding indicative of a shape associated with the at least one sketch.”
Mezghanni paragraph 67 disclose “The topological signature is an embedding vector that the neural network outputs for the input B-rep and that captures the topology of the underlying B-rep.” The vector embedding Capturing the topology of the underlying B-rep corresponds with a shape embedding.
Claim 6 further recites “6. The method according to claim 5, wherein analyzing the at least one sketch to compute the second set of attributes indicative of the vector representation of the at least one sketch comprises: applying, …, a first computer vision model to an image of the at least one sketch to generate the shape embedding of the at least one sketch.” Mezghanni paragraph 37 discloses “The topological signature of the B-rep is a vector outputted by the Deep CAD neural network further to the processing of the input B-rep graph by the neural network's layers, and thereby forms a vector representation of the input B-rep graph.” The output vector representation corresponds with vector representation of the sketch. The Deep CAD neural network corresponds with a computer vision model.
Claim 8 further recites “8. The method according to claim 5, wherein the normal vector to the at least one sketch is computed using a predefined function.” Mezghanni paragraph 49 disclose “In addition to connectivity, topological information also includes orientation of edges and face, while, geometric information consists usually of mathematical equations describing vertices, edges and faces (points, curves and surfaces respectively).” A mathematical equation describing the orientation of a face corresponds with a normal vector of the respective face.
Claim 10 further recites “10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the graph data model is a property graph.” Mezghanni paragraph 54 disclose:
This means that for each edge of the B-rep, there is a respective graph node, for each face of the B-rep, there is a respective graph node, and for each co-edge of the B-rep, there is a respective graph node. Each graph node further comprises a geometrical and/or topological feature associated with (i.e., attached to) the graph nodes. The feature is data, for example a vector (also referred to as feature vector), associated with the node and describing geometrical data and/or topological data characterizing the B-rep element represented by the graph nodes.
The B-rep corresponding graph node feature vectors correspond with the claimed plurality of features parsed from the geometric design. The graph nodes representing the B-rep elements as a set correspond with a property graph.
Claim 11 further recites “11. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: providing, …, a graphical representation of the graph data model on a user-interface.” Mezghanni paragraph 50 disclose “The shape of the mechanical part displayed on the screen of the computer when the modeled object is represented.” Mezghanni paragraph 124 disclose “The system may comprise a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface (GUI), the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing the method.” A graphical user interface displaying the shape of the mechanical part corresponds with providing a graphical representation on a user interface.
Claim 12 further recites “12. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: using, …, the graph data model to identify similarity of the geometric design to a subsequent geometric design.” Mezghanni paragraph 108 discloses “The method of use may be for CAD object retrieval in a database through topological similarity search.” Mezghanni paragraph 104 disclose “The method of use may be for topological similarity search between two CAD models.” One of the two CAD models is considered a subsequent design.
Claim 13 further recites “13. A computer system arranged and configured to execute the steps of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.” Mezghanni paragraph 124 disclose “The system may comprise a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface (GUI), the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing the method.”
Claim 14 further recites “14. A computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method of claim 1.” Mezghanni paragraph 124 disclose “The system may comprise a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface (GUI), the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing the method.”
Claim 15 further recites “15. A computer-readable medium) comprising a computer program product comprising computer program code which, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to carry out the method of claim 1.” Mezghanni paragraph 124 disclose “The system may comprise a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface (GUI), the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing the method.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghanni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 7,149,677 B2 Jayaram, et al. [herein “Jayaram”].
Claim 4 further recites “4. The method according to claim 1, wherein parsing the plurality of feature associated with the geometric design to identify the first set of attributes comprises: parsing, …, a model tree comprising the plurality of features associated with the geometric design in the Computer-Aided Design tool, using an application programming interface, to extract one or more first attributes corresponding to each of the features, wherein the model tree is a hierarchical data structure of the features arranged in an order of creation of the features.” Mezghanni paragraph 38 disclose “a CAD model or object is a feature-based object represented by a feature tree from which a B-rep representation of the model may be generated (i.e., by executing the feature tree).” The feature tree corresponds with a model tree of a plurality of features.
Mezghanni paragraph 124 disclose “The system may comprise a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface (GUI), the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing the method.” A graphical user interface is similar, but not the same as an application programming interface.
Mezghanni does not explicitly disclose application programming interface; however, in analogous art of geometric model comparison (see Jayaram column 15), Jayaram column 14 lines 51-52 teaches “Both of these steps are accomplished by utilizing the CAD system's own application program interfaces (API's).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mezghanni and Jayaram. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use APIs into the system of topologically-aware CAD retrieval for the advantageous purpose where the CAD system can write and read respective model formats. See Jayaram column 14 lines 37-65.
Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghanni as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US patent 11,947,491 B2 Sawyer, et al. [herein “Sawyer”].
Claim 7 further recites “7. The method according to claim 5, wherein analyzing the at least one sketch to compute the second set of attributes indicative of the vector representation of the at least one sketch comprises: generating, …, at least one bounding box around the at least one sketch in the image, using a second computer vision model.” Mezghanni paragraph 37 discloses “The topological signature of the B-rep is a vector outputted by the Deep CAD neural network further to the processing of the input B-rep graph by the neural network's layers, and thereby forms a vector representation of the input B-rep graph.” The output vector representation corresponds with vector representation of the sketch.
But Mezghanni does not explicitly disclose bounding box; however, in analogous art of geometric searching, Sawyer column 15 lines 22-25 teaches “A further heuristic may be applied to limit the number of scales or distances to be considered by comparing extents of a 2D drawing to a bounding box of a 3D model.” A bounding box of the 3D model corresponds with a bounding box around at least one sketch in the image.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mezghanni and Sawyer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use bounding box scales into the system of topologically-aware CAD retrieval for the advantageous purpose “to limit the number of scales or distances to be considered” when comparing geometry. See Sawyer column 15 lines 10-28.
Claim 7 further recites “and computing, …, the dimension embedding corresponding to the at least one sketch based on spatial coordinates of the bounding box.” Sawyer column 15 lines 22-25 teaches “A further heuristic may be applied to limit the number of scales or distances to be considered by comparing extents of a 2D drawing to a bounding box of a 3D model.” The scales or distances are at least one dimension based on the coordinates of the bounding box.
Dependent Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezghanni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 11,164,084 B1 David, et al. [herein “David”].
Claim 9 further recites “9. The method according to claim 1, wherein providing the machine-comprehensible graph data model generated based on the set of first attributes and the set of second attributes, to the requesting entity, comprises: mapping, …, the set of first attributes and the set of second attributes to a predefined ontology.” Mezghanni paragraph 82 disclose “the Deep CAD neural network to return a single signature for an input CAD model.” A outputting a single signature for a given input CAD model corresponds with the mapping being deterministic to a particular ontology for the given attributes of the given input CAD model.
Claim 9 further recites “generating, …, triples based on the mapping of the set of first attributes and the set of second attributes to the predefined ontology, wherein the triples form the machine-comprehensible graph data model of the geometric design.” Mezghanni paragraph 26 disclose “a positive pair and ([…]) represents an embedding of the positive pair by the Deep CAD neural network.” This teaches embedding pairs.
But Mezghanni does not explicitly disclose triplets forming the graph data model; however, in analogous art of convolutional neural network memory representation, David column 20 lines 9-11 teaches “the memory may store a triplet of values identifying each inter-cluster weight or filter.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mezghanni and David. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a triplet representation into the system of topologically-aware CAD retrieval for the advantageous purpose where storing triplet values is one of several art recognized indexing methods suitable for storing CNN related values. See David column 19 lines 53 et seq..
Claim 9 further recites “and storing, …, the triples to a graph database, wherein the graph database is accessible by the requesting entity.” Mezghanni paragraph 111 disclose:
a database of B-reps and/or CAD models associated to these B-reps, each B-rep and/or CAD model in the database being associated with its topological signature (i.e., which is already computed, e.g., which has been previously computed by using the neural network)
A database of previously computed topological signatures corresponds with a database storing respective machine-comprehensible graph data models of each previously computed CAD model.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12288013 B2 Jayaraman; Pradeep Kumar et al.
teaches
Techniques for generating UV-net representations of 3D CAD objects for machine learning models
US 8429174 B2 Ramani; Karthik et al.
Performing searches on three dimensional objects
WO 2023230769 A1 ZOU, Wenchao et al.
CAD Model Search Method, CAD Model Clustering and Classification Model Generation
JP 7509537 B2 エロワ メーア et al.
Forming a Data Set for Editable Feature Tree Inference
Angrish, A., et al. “MVCNN++: Computer-Aided Design Model Shape Classification and Retrieval Using Multi-View Convolutional Neural Networks” J. Computing & Information Science in Engineering, vol. 21 (2021)
Multi-view convolutional neural network++ algorithm for classification and retrieval of 3D CAD models.
Lee, J., et al. “3D convolutional neural network for machining feature recognition with gradient‑based visual explanations from 3D CAD models” Nature, Scientific Reports (1 September 2022)
3D-CNN to recognize CAD model machining features for use with subsequent CAM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 15 September 2026
Prosecution Insights