Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are currently 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2023, 01/27/2025 and 07/02/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 recites “The system of claim 18” which is a dependency error. However, claim 18 is directed to the non-transitory computer readable medium…”. Therefore, claim 19 incorrectly changes statutory class. It should read “The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18…”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a model access engine configured to…; and
a model explosion engine configured to…:
The term “engine” is a non-structural term that is recited as a generic placeholder with no specific structural meaning. The “engines” are modified by “configured to,” which is functional language that acts as a linking term between the generic placeholder and its function. Finally, in both instances, the “engine” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the function. Accordingly, claims 8-14 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as reciting functional claim language.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, Wilmot, et al. "Automated generation of interactive 3D exploded view diagrams." ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG) 27.3 (2008): 1-7), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1
Li teaches a method comprising: by a computing system: accessing a computer-aided design (CAD) model comprised of multiple CAD parts;(see section 4 and fig 4(a)-The minimum input to our system is a 3D solid model whose individual parts are represented as separate geometric objects.)
constructing a blocking data structure for the CAD model that stores a blocking state for each pair of CAD parts among the multiple CAD parts of the CAD model, wherein the blocking state for a particular pair of CAD parts, including a first CAD part and a second CAD part of the multiple CAD parts, (see section 4.1 and fig 4-Since many of the computations described below need to know whether parts touch, block, or contain each other, our system computes auxiliary data structures that encode these low-level spatial relationships. Contact and blocking relationships are computed and stored. For a given part p, these data structures can be queried to determine all the parts that touch p and all the parts that block p from moving in each of the possible explosion directions. We use an approximate definition of containment that is computed as follows. For a pair of parts (p1, p2), our system checks whether the convex hull of p2 is completely inside the convex hull of p1 and if p1 blocks p2 from moving in each of the possible explosion directions. If so, p1 is considered to contain p2.) specifies:
explosion directions, if any, in a set of predetermined explosion directions that the first CAD part collides with the second CAD part when moving along the explosion directions; (see section 4.1- For a given part p, these data structures can be queried to determine all the parts that touch p and all the parts that block p from moving in each of the possible explosion directions) and
an escape distance for each given explosion direction in the set of predetermined explosion directions that the first CAD part does not collide with the second CAD part when moving along the given explosion direction, wherein the escape distance specifies a distance along the given explosion direction at which no portion of the first CAD part is within a bounding box of the second CAD part; (see section 4.1-4.2- The algorithms for computing contact, blocking, and containment relationships assume the input model is two-sided and that parts that are meant to fit together do not interfere with each other. For each part p ∈ P, the system computes the minimum distance p would have to move (in one of its unblocked directions) to escape the bounding box of the active parts in contact with p. The part pi ∈P with the minimum escape distance is added to the graph. An edge is added from every active part that touches pi, and the direction used to compute the minimum escape distance is stored as the explosion direction for pi.)and
constructing an explosion graph for the CAD model (see section 4.1-To enable interactive exploded views, our system organizes parts into a directed acyclic explosion graph, as shown in Figure 4b and see also section 4.2-constrcuting an explosion graph) by iteratively adding nodes into the explosion graph, each node representing a different CAD part of the CAD model, (see section 4.2-To construct the explosion graph, we use an iterative algorithm that removes unblocked parts from the model, one at a time, and adds them to the graph. Examiner consider the physical CAD parts correspond directly to the nodes of the explosion graph. Figure 4(b) showing nodes labeled 'a' through 'h' mapping directly to the individual parts of the 3D model.) wherein constructing the explosion graph comprises, for a given iteration:
querying the blocking data structure to determine a set of candidate CAD parts to add to the explosion graph from a set of active CAD parts for the CAD model, wherein each candidate CAD part in the set of candidate CAD parts is not blocked by any other CAD part in the set of active CAD parts in at least one explosion direction;(see section 4.1- our system computes auxiliary data structures that encode these low-level spatial relationships. Contact and blocking relationships are computed and stored. For a given part p, these data structures can be queried to determine all the parts that touch p and all the parts that block p from moving in each of the possible explosion directions. see section 4.2-To begin, all model parts are inserted into a set S of active parts. At each iteration, the system determines the set of parts P ⊆S that are unblocked in at least one direction by any other active part.)
selecting a particular CAD part from the set of candidate CAD parts with a lowest escape distance;(see section 4.2-For each part p ∈ P, the system computes the minimum distance p would have to move (in one of its unblocked directions) to escape the bounding box of the active parts in contact with p. The part pi ∈P with the minimum escape distance is added to the graph)
adding a node in the explosion graph to represent the particular CAD part and adding an edge from the node to each CAD part in the set of active CAD parts that collides with the particular CAD part in at least one of the explosion directions; (see section 4.1-To construct the explosion graph, we use an iterative algorithm that removes unblocked parts from the model, one at a time, and adds them to the graph. An edge is added from every active part that touches pi, and the direction used to compute the minimum escape distance is stored as the explosion direction for pi.)and
removing the particular CAD part selected for the given iteration from the set of active CAD parts; (see section 4.1-Finally, pi is removed from S. The algorithm terminates when no unblocked parts can be removed from S.)and
generating an exploded view representation of the CAD model using the constructed explosion graph.(see abstract-We present a system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models. In our approach, a 3D input model is organized into an explosion graph that encodes how parts explode with respect to each other. See section 4.1- To enable interactive exploded views, our system organizes parts into a directed acyclic explosion graph, as shown in Figure 4b. The structure of the graph defines the relative order in which parts can be exploded without violating blocking constraints. See- automated generation of the visual exploded layout (as illustrated in Figure 4(c)).)
Regarding claim 8
Li teaches a system comprising: a model access engine configured to access a computer-aided design (CAD) model comprised of multiple CAD parts; and a model explosion engine configured to: (see abstract- We present a system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models. In our approach, a 3D input model is organized into an explosion graph that encodes how parts explode with respect to each other. We present an automatic method for computing explosion graphs that takes into account part hierarchies in the input models and handles common classes of interlocking parts. see section 4 and fig 4-The minimum input to our system is a 3D solid model whose individual parts are represented as separate geometric objects.)
The rest of the body of the claim 8 is similar to claim 1, thus rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15
Li teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computing system to: access a computer-aided design (CAD) model comprised of multiple CAD parts;: (see abstract- We present a system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models. In our approach, a 3D input model is organized into an explosion graph that encodes how parts explode with respect to each other. We present an automatic method for computing explosion graphs that takes into account part hierarchies in the input models and handles common classes of interlocking parts. see section 4 and fig 4-The minimum input to our system is a 3D solid model whose individual parts are represented as separate geometric objects.)
The rest of the body of the claim 15 is similar to claim 1, thus rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3
Li further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein constructing the explosion graph comprises initializing the set of active CAD parts to include all of the multiple CAD parts that form the CAD model prior to or during a first iteration of constructing the explosion graph.(see section Basic Approach and fig 4- To construct the explosion graph, we use an iterative algorithm that removes unblocked parts from the model, one at a time, and adds them to the graph. To begin, all model parts are inserted into a set S of active parts. See fig 4(a) input model and 4(b) explosion graph)
Regarding claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as of claim 3 since they are similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claim(s) 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Li, Wilmot, et al. "Automated generation of interactive 3D exploded view diagrams." ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG) 27.3 (2008): 1-7), hereinafter Li, in view of ULIANENKO et al. (PUB NO: US20210173982A1).
Regarding claim 2
Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein constructing the blocking data structure (230) for the CAD model comprises computing a blocking state for a pair of CAD parts computes auxiliary data structures that encode these low-level spatial relationships. Contact and blocking relationships are computed and stored. For a given part p, these data structures can be queried to determine all the parts that touch p and all the parts that block p from moving in each of the possible explosion directions. We use an approximate definition of containment that is computed as follows. For a pair of parts (p1, p2), our system checks whether the convex hull of p2 is completely inside the convex hull of p1 and if p1 blocks p2 from moving in each of the possible explosion directions. If so, p1 is considered to contain p2.)
Li does not teach computing a blocking state for a pair of CAD parts that are not in contact with one another in the CAD model.
In the related field of invention, ULIANENKO teaches computing a blocking state for a pair of CAD parts that are not in contact with one another in the CAD model. (See para 77-For each pair of removable parts of the aligned removable set is determined whether the removable parts of the pair are deemed adjacent. Deemed adjacent removable parts comprise bounding boxes which touch or intersect. see para 215 and fig 4-Standard part 52 comprises main symmetry axis 53. The assembly comprises other parts 50 and 51. Standard part 52 comprises blocked offset 55 in relation to part 51, and free offset 54 in relation to part 50.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models as disclosed by Li to include computing a blocking state for a pair of CAD parts that are not in contact with one another in the CAD model as taught by ULIANENKO in the system of Li for creation of an exploded view based on the CAD model, and in particular based on the low-level features of the multiple parts for forming an assembly. (see para [0002], ULIANENKO)
Regarding claim 9 and 16
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for the same reason as of claim 2 since they are similar.
Regarding claim 4
Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the particular CAD part from the set of candidate CAD parts (see section 4.2-The part pi ∈P with the minimum escape distance is added to the graph.) comprises:
identifying multiple CAD parts in the set of candidate CAD parts each with an escape distance that is the lowest escape distance; (see section 4.2 and fig 4- For each part p ∈ P, the system computes the minimum distance p would have to move (in one of its unblocked directions) to escape the bounding box of the active parts in contact with p. The part pi ∈P with the minimum escape distance is added to the graph.) and
Li does not teach determining the particular CAD part as a given CAD part with a lowest part volume among the multiple CAD parts in the set of candidate CAD parts each with an escape distance that is the lowest escape distance.
In the related field of invention, ULIANENKO teaches determining the particular CAD part as a given CAD part with a lowest part volume among the multiple CAD parts in the set of candidate CAD parts each with an escape distance that is the lowest escape distance.(see para 48- In a preferred embodiment, a blocking subset of parts is determined for a part of the assembly and a corresponding test direction by: filtering from the assembly a candidate (blocking) set of candidate parts of the assembly based on a view box. see para 230-234- The present example pertains to embodiments of algorithms to select a disassembly direction and one or more disassembly parts. Such selection may be based on: the test direction associated with the smallest total volume of all non - blocked parts may be selected)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models as disclosed by Li to include determining the particular CAD part as a given CAD part with a lowest part volume among the multiple CAD parts in the set of candidate CAD parts each with an escape distance that is the lowest escape distance as taught by ULIANENKO in the system of Li for creation of an exploded view based on the CAD model, and in particular based on the low-level features of the multiple parts for forming an assembly. (see para [0002], ULIANENKO)
Regarding claim 11 and 17
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected for the same reason as of claim 4 since they are similar.
7. Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Li, Wilmot, et al. "Automated generation of interactive 3D exploded view diagrams." ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG) 27.3 (2008): 1-7), hereinafter Li, in view of Yamamato et al. (PUB NO: US20170066092A1)
Regarding claim 5
Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein constructing the explosion graph further comprises setting a primary parent for a given node in the explosion graph, (see section 4.1 and fig 4- We define this initial position with respect to the largest of the direct parents of p, which encourages smaller parts to move together with larger parts. See fig 4(b)-for child node e, the set of candidate parent nodes are (b, d, f, g)) including by:
identifying a set of candidate parent nodes of the explosion graph, wherein each candidate parent node is connected to or to be connected to the given node by an edge directed into the given node; (see section 4.1-4.2- We define this initial position with respect to the largest of the direct parents of p, which encourages smaller parts to move together with larger parts. An edge is added from every active part that touches pi. See fig 4(b)-for child node e, the set of candidate parent nodes are (b, d, f, g)) and
Li does not teach selecting, as the primary parent for the given node, a given candidate parent node that represents a particular CAD part closest in distance, in the CAD model, to the CAD part represented by the given node.
In the related field of invention, Yamamoto teaches selecting, as the primary parent for the given node, a given candidate parent node that represents a particular CAD part closest in distance, in the CAD model, to the CAD part represented by the given node. (see para 87-88 and fig 8 and 10(b)- For example, when distance distinguishments b, c, and d, which cause obstruction in the order in which the parts are close to the fastening part, are selected as distinguishment, parts, which cause obstruction during the assembly of the fastening part 500, can be grasped as parts having part IDs 701 (obstruction b), 702 (obstruction c), and 703 (obstruction d) as the result of the light ray scanning in the axial direction. A part ID is represented on a node, the connection precedence relationship between parts is represented as a directed edge, the results of light ray scanning in the radial direction are illustrated by a solid line, and the results of light ray scanning in the axial direction are illustrated by a broken line, a dotted line, and a one-dot chain line in FIG. 10(b).Accordingly, it is possible to grasp that there is a case in which parts 601, 602, and 603 are disassembled by the disassembly of the fastening part 500 and parts 701, 702, and 703 cause obstruction in the disassembly of the fastening part 500.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models as disclosed by Li to include selecting, as the primary parent for the given node, a given candidate parent node that represents a particular CAD part closest in distance, in the CAD model, to the CAD part represented by the given node as taught by Yamamoto in the system of Li for performing calculation including the determination of occurrence of interference and the shortest distance between a part, which is being disassembled, and a remaining part during disassembly; and means for searching for a disassembly path for avoiding the occurrence of interference between parts while allowing the interference calculation means to perform the calculation. (see para [0002], Yamamoto)
Regarding claim 12 and 18
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected for the same reason as of claim 5 since they are similar.
8. Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Li, Wilmot, et al. "Automated generation of interactive 3D exploded view diagrams." ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG) 27.3 (2008): 1-7), hereinafter Li, in view of Watson, James, and Tucker Hermans. "Assembly planning by subassembly decomposition using blocking reduction." IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4.4 (2019): 4054-4061)
Regarding claim 7
Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein constructing the explosion graph further comprises determining that none of CAD parts in the set of active CAD parts are unblocked in at least one explosion direction, (see section 4.2- To construct the explosion graph, we use an iterative algorithm that removes unblocked parts from the model, one at a time, and adds them to the graph. The algorithm terminates when no unblocked parts can be removed from S.) and in response:
adding a node in the explosion graph to represent the combination of the two CAD parts; and removing the two CAD parts that form the combination from the set of active CAD parts.(see section 4.2- To construct the explosion graph, we use an iterative algorithm that removes unblocked parts from the model, one at a time, and adds them to the graph. h. To begin, all model parts are inserted into a set S of active parts. At each iteration, the system determines the set of parts P ⊆S that are unblocked in at least one direction by any other active part.)
Li does not teach querying the blocking data structure to determine a combination of two CAD parts in the set of active CAD parts is not blocked by any other CAD part in the set of active CAD parts in at least one explosion direction
In the related field of invention, Watson teaches querying the blocking data structure to determine a combination of two CAD parts in the set of active CAD parts is not blocked by any other CAD part in the set of active CAD parts in at least one explosion direction;(see page 3-4- The total blockage τi for part i describes the degree to which a single part or subassembly is blocked by all other parts. A single part may be partially blocked by several neighbors, and cannot be removed. However, if this part can be removed with its blocking neighbors as a unit, then it is a logical candidate for a subassembly. (Figure 4) Also, adjacent parts that can be removed as a unit become part of a subassembly. Fig. 4: Part A cannot be removed alone, but a subassembly consisting of A and B can)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models as disclosed by Li to include querying the blocking data structure to determine a combination of two CAD parts in the set of active CAD parts is not blocked by any other CAD part in the set of active CAD parts in at least one explosion direction as taught by Watson in the system of Li for developing a disassembly sequence planner that partitions assemblies in a way that prioritizes access to parts, resulting in plans that are comparable in efficiency to two state-of-the-art assembly methods
in terms of total plan length. (see Abstract, Watson)
Regarding claim 14 and 20
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected for the same reason as of claim 7 since they are similar.
9. Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Li, Wilmot, et al. "Automated generation of interactive 3D exploded view diagrams." ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG) 27.3 (2008): 1-7), hereinafter Li, in view of Yamamato et al. (PUB NO: US20170066092A1) and further n view of ULIANENKO et al. (PUB NO: US20210173982A1).
Regarding claim 6
The combination of Li and Yamamato teaches the method of claim 5.
Li does not teach wherein setting the primary parent for the given node further comprises determining there are multiple CAD parts represented in the set of candidate parent nodes that are closest in distance to the CAD part represented by the given node; and wherein selecting the primary parent for the given node comprises selecting a given candidate parent node that represents a particular CAD part that: is closest in distance, in the CAD model, to the CAD part represented by the given node; and collides with the CAD part represented by the given node in a highest number of explosion directions.
However, Yamamato further teaches wherein setting the primary parent for the given node further comprises determining there are multiple CAD parts represented in the set of candidate parent nodes that are closest in distance to the CAD part represented by the given node; and wherein selecting the primary parent for the given node comprises selecting a given candidate parent node that represents a particular CAD part that: is closest in distance, in the CAD model, to the CAD part represented by the given node; (see para 87-88 and fig 8 and 10(b)- For example, when distance distinguishments b, c, and d, which cause obstruction in the order in which the parts are close to the fastening part, are selected as distinguishment, parts, which cause obstruction during the assembly of the fastening part 500, can be grasped as parts having part IDs 701 (obstruction b), 702 (obstruction c), and 703 (obstruction d) as the result of the light ray scanning in the axial direction. A part ID is represented on a node, the connection precedence relationship between parts is represented as a directed edge, the results of light ray scanning in the radial direction are illustrated by a solid line, and the results of light ray scanning in the axial direction are illustrated by a broken line, a dotted line, and a one-dot chain line in FIG. 10(b).Accordingly, it is possible to grasp that there is a case in which parts 601, 602, and 603 are disassembled by the disassembly of the fastening part 500 and parts 701, 702, and 703 cause obstruction in the disassembly of the fastening part 500.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models as disclosed by Li to include wherein setting the primary parent for the given node further comprises determining there are multiple CAD parts represented in the set of candidate parent nodes that are closest in distance to the CAD part represented by the given node; and wherein selecting the primary parent for the given node comprises selecting a given candidate parent node that represents a particular CAD part that: is closest in distance, in the CAD model, to the CAD part represented by the given node as taught by Yamamoto in the system of Li for performing calculation including the determination of occurrence of interference and the shortest distance between a part, which is being disassembled, and a remaining part during disassembly; and means for searching for a disassembly path for avoiding the occurrence of interference between parts while allowing the interference calculation means to perform the calculation. (see para [0002], Yamamoto)
The combination of Li and Yamamato does not teach wherein selecting the primary parent for the given node comprises selecting a given candidate parent node that represents a particular CAD part that: collides with the CAD part represented by the given node in a highest number of explosion directions.
In the related field of invention, ULIANENKO teaches wherein selecting the primary parent for the given node comprises selecting a given candidate parent node that represents a particular CAD part that: collides with the CAD part represented by the given node in a highest number of explosion directions. (See para 44-In a preferred embodiment, for each part of the assembly one or more test directions are automatically determined. A “test direction” or “explosion direction” of a part is a likely movement direction for the part in “disassembling” the assembly for creating an exploded view. See para 66- Herein, a directed edge from a first node to a second node represents the part associated with the first node either being blocked by or blocking the part associated with the second node in the test direction. Preferably, a directed edge from a first node to a second node represents the part associated with the first node being blocked in the test direction by the part associated with the second node. see para 222-232-In case one or more sliding parts have been identified, a leader part is selected from the one or more sliding parts. In case no sliding parts have been identified, the following checks are performed for each pair of parts associated with the subassembly node. Herein, a blocked direction of a part is a test direction in which a blocking part is present. Check that the number of blocked directions for a part is greater than 8 and less than 12. This means that only of from 1 to 4 free and/or slide directions are available. The present example pertains to embodiments of algorithms to select a disassembly direction and one or more disassembly parts. Such selection may be based on: For each test direction, the number of free parts can be determined. Free parts do not have blocking parts or sliding parts in the test direction.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for creating and viewing interactive exploded views of complex 3D models as disclosed by Li to include computing a blocking state for a pair of CAD parts that are not in contact with one another in the CAD model as taught by ULIANENKO in the system of Li and Yamamato for creation of an exploded view based on the CAD model, and in particular based on the low-level features of the multiple parts for forming an assembly. (see para [0002], ULIANENKO)
Regarding claim 13 and 19
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected for the same reason as of claim 5 since they are similar.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Delfino US20180089362A1
i. Discussing the method for creating partially or totally exploded views of an assembly of parts with minimal burden for the user and effective use of the computing resources. It also aims at making easy to collapse back the exploded assembly and/or to obtain a progressive explosion, and at ensuring reproducibility of the generated exploded views.
11. All claims 1-20 are rejected.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights