Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 04/25/2023.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 13-15 are objected
Claim 4 is rejected under 112(b)
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, “software per se”.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”) in further view of US 20190095870 A1 Byrne et al (“BYR”)
Claims 5, 6, 13,14,15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”) in further view of US 20080062167 A1, Boggs et al (BOG)
Claim 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”) in further view of US 20080062167 A1, Steinbrecher (“STA”)
Claims 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”) in further view of Coutts (US 20080036769 A1), hereinafter COU.
Priority
The application is a PCT 371 of PCT/EP2021/080137 with filing date 10/29/2021 App #
18/250,430 and claims priority to the Application BE2020/5780, KINGDOM OF BELGIUM
Filing Date10/30/2020. Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Notations, Abbreviations and Conventions used.
The number in the parenthesis, following next to a claim number, when used, is the number of the parent claim.
The following abbreviations are used:
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
POSITA = Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
101 - 35 USC § 101
102 or 103 = 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103
(S1)/(S2A1)/(S2A2) (S2B) = Steps 1, 2AProng1 , 2AProng2, and 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis in the Alice/Mayo framework
WURC = Well Understood, Routine, Conventional
{ } text from the reference
Claim Objections
Claims 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 – and similarly 14 and 15 should be amended in a form that makes them directed to a statutory category, e.g. “The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is used for managing CAD- knowledge models of cooling installations (while 14 and 15 directed to system and computer-readable medium respectively)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “CAD module” and “calculation module” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein each of the input and output data fields of a knowledge model are stored in the database as a table or as a string in a flat file, preferably as a string in a flat file, more preferably wherein elements of a data field in a string of a flat file are separated by means of a separation symbol”. The use of the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because one can determine whether the recitation that follow these are required limitations or merely exemplary, nonlimiting preference.
Claim limitation 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide any detail on CAD-module or calculation modules (or modules in general), no description of algorithm or some type of structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to a configuration system which is interpreted in BRI to be computer programs. The claims scope is therefore software per se – which is non-statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 11 is recited as directed to a computer system but does not recite any physical or tangible structure. Claim 12 is directed to a computer program. One way to overcome this rejection, is to amend the claim 11 to include a structural element such as a processor, and claim 12 to recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium. This will be the interpretation adopted for advancing prosecution.
Dependent claims 14-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they inherit the deficiency of the parent claims.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”)
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 11, 12 VRE teaches
providing a database for management of a plurality of CAD-knowledge models,
{Figs 1, 2, 3; Abstract -A knowledge management system captures, stores, manages, and applies rules for modeling geometric objects and related non-geometric attributes. The knowledge management system controls a computer-aided design system for modeling a geometric structure. The knowledge management system includes a knowledge management application in communication with the computer-aided design system through an application program interface. The knowledge management system also includes a central database managed by a knowledge storage application for maintaining rules and other related information; [0128] The knowledge storage application 220 stores modeling information in a relational database, including, among other things, rule programs generated by the knowledge acquisition application 210 and models generated by the knowledge management application 230.}
applying a modification to the three-dimensional parametric CAD-model, wherein the modification corresponds to a changed parameter of said model; {VRE [0123] The knowledge management system is generally independent of the CAD system, although the knowledge management system can interface with a CAD system for, among other things, importing/integrating component specifications from the CAD system for use in modeling, instructing the CAD system to produce a geometric model incorporating the components and parameters defined by the knowledge management system}
VRE does not explicitly teach all limitations regarding the database slots and file representation, however SAA teaches
the database comprising for each CAD-knowledge model a plurality of input and output data fields, each comprising a data slot and a CAD- identifier, and a plurality of calculation modules for transforming values provided to input data slots to values of output data slots, { SAA [0063] FIGS 4A and 4B – var name and value ; FIGS. 4A-4B values, formulas [0064] As has been described, variables have a name and a value;} identifier interpreted as name, data slot is field for value; fig 4A webserver with xml files going to server as the database ; input data field as variable name with a field where a value is specified, output data field as the variable name where a formula is specified.
which calculation modules are provided to the database for a CAD-knowledge model as one or more of a flat file, a structured file, a relational table file or an XML data file and which calculation modules are stored as a JSON file on the database; { SAA fig4A formula’ [0065] Formulas are mathematical expressions. They can contain operators including, but not limited to, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and boolean comparison to arrive at predictable results based on the product's current state. These operators act upon static values contained in the formula or on dynamic values that are pulled from variables anywhere inside the product's hierarchy tree. Often, the operands in a formula are themselves derived from the results of other formulas elsewhere in the parametric product. [0028] Many other languages besides XML can also be used. These include, but are not limited to: JSON object notation, a relational database of tables, object definitions in Ruby, C programming language STRUCTS, etc. Any data format that can accurately store the hierarchy of elements defined is usable.
Calculation module interpreted as the formula in Fig 4A. Database for CAD model interpreted as the storing system, that stores the hierarchy of elements. The art teaches that many formats and systems can be used including XML and JSON.
providing a plurality of input values in the input data slots of a CAD- knowledge model,
wherein for said input values a corresponding output value is obtained for said knowledge model by means of the calculation modules; { SAA [0067]-[0070] <var name="price" formula="180+12" /> [0068] At run time, this variable's formula will be executed, arriving at the mathematical result of "192" (180+12=192). Here, the computer system reading the parametric model would calculate the variable "H" as 51 (48+3=51). }
Calculation modules interpreted as the formulas. Corresponding output value obtained for said knowledge model by means of calculation models interpreted as the mathematical result.
providing at least some of the values and corresponding CAD-identifiers comprised by the plurality input and output data slots of said CAD-knowledge model to a CAD-module suitable for generating a parametric three- dimensional CAD-model; { SAA see at least [0004] Applying this method to define parametric behaviors of three dimensional objects, it is possible to develop generalized parametric data models that can be used to generate 3D objects within various three dimensional design application environments. Fig.2A-2C }
In 2a/2B the plurality of variable names and values/formulas, where values are provided for val and outputs are calculated by formulas; in C the generated parametric 3D CAD model.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of VRE and KEM both in parametric CAD modeling and CAD knowledge management. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of use of industry standard formats and specifying the characteristics of the corresponding parameters.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over VRE/SAA.
VRE/SAA teach parameteric modeling and CAD knowledge management. They do not explicitly teach however KAM teaches
obtaining a three-dimensional parametric CAD-model from the provided values of said knowledge model by means of said CAD-module, wherein each CAD-identifier from a data field in the database for said knowledge model corresponds to a parameter of a parametric CAD- model; { Fig 2;
[0020] Thus, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment, when values of parameters such as dimensions of elements in the SysML knowledge model are changed, the resulting changes in the CAD model are updated substantially immediately (step 310). For example, when dimensions of an object are changed in the SysML knowledge model, the changes will be applied to the CAD model substantially immediately}
In BRI the references teaches that the changes in values in the knowledge model are updates as changes in the CAD model.
obtaining a value corresponding to the changed parameter on the database; adapting an original value of a data slot in the database to the value corresponding to the changed parameter, wherein the data field of said original value has a CAD-identifier corresponding to the changed parameter. { [0016] Knowledge server 210 may receive, from CAD application 220, parameters such as dimensions from a CAD model 222, and instantiate the SysML knowledge model 202 using the parameters received from the CAD model 222;}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of VRE/SAA and KEM both in parametric CAD modeling and CAD knowledge management. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of benefiting from bidirectional updates in record for maintaining a unified repository of knowledge.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over VRE/SAA/KEM.
3(1) Regarding claim 3(1) VRE/SAA/KEM teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SAA further teaches
wherein the input and output data fields of a knowledge model are stored in the database as one or more of a flat file, a structured file, a relational table file or an XML data file.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stored in a database as an XML file is interpreted as “saved to a webs server with extension xml.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of VRE/SAA/KEM with further teaching of SAA One would have been motivated to save in the same format as the one provided to the database to obtain the advantage of avoiding file conversions and these types of files being relevant and used in industry for such purpose.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over VRE/SAA/KEM.
4(1) Regarding claim 4(1) VRE/SAA/KEM teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SAA further teaches
wherein each of the input and output data fields of a knowledge model are stored in the database as a table or as a string in a flat file, preferably as a string in a flat file, more preferably wherein elements of a data field in a string of a flat file are separated by means of a separation symbol.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stored as a string in a flat flile is interpreted as “saved to a webs server with extension xml.
As a POSITA will recognize a XML file is a string of characters, and characters are separated eg by comma, of semicolon.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of VRE/SAA/KEM with further teaching of SAA One would have been motivated to save in the same format as the one provided to the database – in this case a XML file - to obtain the advantage of avoiding file conversions and these types of files being relevant and used in industry for such purpose.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over VRE/SAA/KEM.
Regarding claim 9(1) VRE/SAA/KEM teaches the limitations of the parent claim. VRE further teaches
wherein each of the input and output data fields further comprise one or more of a component indicator, a package indicator, a project indicator and a unit associated to the value.
VRE [0117] Unit--A unit of measure for a numeric property value.
PNG
media_image2.png
240
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fragment from Fig 3, showing unit field for specific value. Values for input and output were analysied in the art for independent claims.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”) in further view of US 20190095870 A1 Byrne et al (“BYR”)
Regarding claim 2(1) VRE/SAA/KEM teaches the limitations of the parent claim. VRE/SAA/KEM
does not teach, however BYR teaches
wherein prior to adapting the original value of the data slot in the database to the value corresponding to the changed parameter, the value of the corresponding changed parameter is obtained on an approval module, wherein it is determined on said approval module whether said value meets a source criterium, wherein if said value meets said criterium, the value of the data slot in the database is adapted to the value of the corresponding changed parameter, wherein if said value does not meet said predefined source criterium, the value of the data slot in the database is not adapted to the value of the corresponding changed parameter. { Abstract… prompts the end user to update the record field and, on condition the end user approves in response to the prompting, updates the record field with the contemporaneous value but otherwise maintains the existing value.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of VRE/SAA/KEM and BYR both dealing with updates in databases. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of having checks that avoid obtaining undesired values as may be restricted by the customer, environmental or legal conditions. Both an approval by a user and by specifying the condition in software are common and would be recognized as such, and are common in majority of (re)programmable devices, for example trying to change a reservation online for a past date has checked if date is beyond present date and only in that case allows the change.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over VRE/SAA/KEM in further view of BYR
Claim 7, 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”) in further view of US 20080062167 A1, Steinbrecher (“STA”)
Re claim 7(1) VRE/SAA/KEM teach the limitations of the parent claim. They don’t explicitly teach, however STA teaches
wherein the plurality of input values are provided in the input data slots of a CAD knowledge model as one or more of a flat file, a structured file, a relational table file or an XML data file. { see at least [0325] In a level 1020 “Data integration and transformation”, modules 1022, 1024 are provided, which concern the use of data from different sources. In the example, a module 1022 is provided for exporting and importing data, for example in the file formats TXT and XML,}
In addition it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined teachings VRE/SAA/KEM with STA to have the advantage of matching the formal in which data is stored in the CAD model.
Re claim 10(1) VRE/SAA/KEM teach the limitations of the parent claim. They don’t explicitly teach, however STA teaches
wherein a CAD-knowledge model can be exported from the database as one or more of a flat file, a structured file, a relational table file or an XML data file. { see at least [0325] In a level 1020 “Data integration and transformation”, modules 1022, 1024 are provided, which concern the use of data from different sources. In the example, a module 1022 is provided for exporting and importing data, for example in the file formats TXT and XML,}
In addition it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined teachings VRE/SAA/KEM with STA to have the advantage of matching the formal in which data is stored in the CAD model and use a standard file format such as XML.
Claims 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”) in further view of Coutts (US 20080036769 A1), hereinafter COU.
Re 8(1) VRE/SAA/KAM teach the limitations of the parent claim. They do not teach however COU teaches,
wherein the database further comprises an interface module comprising a view selector module, wherein each of the input and output data fields further comprise a view- indicator, wherein depending on each of the view-indicators of the data fields, the view selector module determines which data fields are shown by the interface module. { 0007, user interface); 0007, means for updating a current reference point), specification of a new endpoint), direction, computer aided design (CAD) system is disclosed that includes a user interface comprising means for updating a current reference point for specifying a plurality of coordinate positions indicating endpoints of a plurality of graphical objects. The user interface can accept successive coordinate positions corresponding to the endpoints from a user, wherein any two endpoints define a direction. Upon specification of a new endpoint, the updating means updates the current reference point to be a penultimate endpoint if the new endpoint and the penultimate endpoint define a new direction. And if the new endpoint and the penultimate endpoint define the same direction as a current direction, the updating means maintains the current reference point (i.e., it does not change the current reference point)].
In addition it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined teachings VRE/SAA/KEM and COU to have the advantage of a user with more flexibility and efficiency in creating and/or modifying drawings.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over COMBI/BOG.
Claims 5, 6, 13,14,15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050071135 A1 Vredenbugh (VRE) in view of 20130201189 A1 Saal et al (“SAA”) in further view of US 20100042658 A1 Kamiyama (“KAM”) in further view of US 20080062167 A1, Boggs et al (BOG)
5(1) Regarding claim 5(1) VRE/SAA/KEM teaches the limitations of the parent claim. VRE/SAA/KEM does not teach, however BOG teaches
wherein the CAD-module comprises one or more of a CAD-application for mechanical design, a CAD- application for design of structural loads, a CAD-application for process design of plant facilities, a CAD-application for Control and Instrumentation, a CAD- application for Electrical design, or any combinations thereof. { BOG [0073] The structural information can further include documentation related to the electrical, mechanical, and/or plumbing features of the structure. For example, layers of the 3-D virtual model can be displayed to the user for viewing structural elements and/or internal layouts of the structure. The structural elements can include, but are not limited to, plumbing systems, electrical systems, mechanical systems, environmental systems, emergency equipment systems of the structure or any other suitable structural elements of the structure or any combination thereof. [0096] REVIT.TM. Building is a building information modeling (BIM) system that provides a conceptual modeling and design environment that takes any overall building form described by the user and maps it to real-world entities. … provides a fully-integrated building information model with a single project database for simplified project management. Model linking is supported for connecting separate models into a single integrated project.}
In addition it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined teachings VRE/SAA/KEM with BOG to have the advantage of addressing the most important subsystems and application fields in building/construction design.
6(1) Regarding claim 6(1) VRE/SAA/KEM teaches the limitations of the parent claim. VRE/SAA/KEM does not teach, however BOG teaches
wherein the CAD-module comprises one or more CAD-applications, wherein the one or more CAD- applications of the CAD-module are coupled via a building information modelling (BIM) application. {[0096] REVIT.TM. Building is a building information modeling (BIM) system that provides a conceptual modeling and design environment that takes any overall building form described by the user and maps it to real-world entities. … provides a fully-integrated building information model with a single project database for simplified project management. Model linking is supported for connecting separate models into a single integrated project.
In addition it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined teachings VRE/SAA/KEM and BOG to have the advantage of coherent knowledge sharing and updates reflected to all components in the same way via a single model. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over VRE/SAA/KEM /BOG.
Regarding claim 13-15 VRE/SAA/KEM teaches the limitations of the parent claim. VRE/SAA/KEM does not teach, however BOG teaches
the use for managing CAD knowledge models of cooling installations. {BOG: [0072] Structural documentation can also form part of the structural information stored or otherwise maintained in the database module 105…[0073] The structural information can further include documentation related to the electrical, mechanical, and/or plumbing features of the structure. …For example, any registered professional or organization engaged in the planning, design, specification, and documentation of the mechanical systems, e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, electrical systems, and/or plumbing systems of a structure can generate documents that can be used as described herein.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of VRE/SAA/KEM I and BOG, both in the field of parametric modeling and CAD knowledge models . One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of addressing the needs of an important component of building, necessary to maintain the comfort of the occupants and lifetime of any store products.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over VRE/SAA/KEM /BOG.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8060514 B2
US 20100042658 A1
US 20050071136 A1
US 20200151923 A1
US 20020130869 A1
US 20070174026 A1
US 20160299771 A1
Badin et al Knowledge Configuration Management for Product Design and Numerical Simulation, Tech Univ of Danmark, 2011
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights