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
The Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/11/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending in
the application. Claims 1, 6 and 11 are independent claims.
Specification
The abstract dated 03/11/2024 has been reviewed. It has 143 words and 9 lines and no legal
phraseology. It is accepted.
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:
The claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-11,13 and 15 recite limitations using the generic place holder “unit,” including at least the priority calculation unit, feature extraction unit, output unit, storage unit, setting unit, and shape check unit. These limitations use the generic placeholder "unit" modified by functional language, and the claim language does not recite sufficient structure, materials or acts for performing the recited functions. Therefore, the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In the instant specification, [0014], “a storage unit that realizes each DB may also be provided on a network connected to the design support device 10 … the setting unit 101, the update unit 102, the priority calculation unit 104, the shape check unit 105, the output unit 106, and the feature extraction unit 107 are desirably realized by a computer program and a processing unit that processes according to the program, but the units may be realized by dedicated hardware. [0015], “… the correspondence table DB D001, the criterion DB D002, and the past subject information DB D003 can be realized by a storage unit called storage.” [0022], “Further, in step S102, the feature extraction unit 107 extracts the feature amount including shape information such as dimensions of a designed product and order of the criteria from the read 3D-CAD and the process of the past subject information 003.” [0025], “the setting unit 101 sets the criterion, which is applied for the delivery destination, the 3D-CAD which is design information including dimensions, the manufacturing apparatus, and the process indicating the check procedure, and its priority. As a result, the setting unit 101 can create the correspondence table 001 illustrated in Fig. 5.” [0027], “the input unit receives new subject information from a user. For this purpose, an input screen is displayed on the screen 103, and the user performs input work by using the input screen.” [0028], “the priority calculation unit 104 calculates the priority using the correspondence table 001, and specifies an order of the criteria based on the calculated priority … the priority calculation unit 104 executes rank learning processing to execute these pieces of processing. In Fig. 6, the priority calculation unit 104 receives the delivery destination, the CAD, the manufacturing apparatus, and the process as the new subject information 301. Then, the priority calculation unit 104 specifies an order 303 of the criteria to be preferentially applied, by using rank learning processing 302 using a model trained with data of the correspondence table 001. The rank learning processing 302 can be realized by a so-called computer program.” [0035], “the shape check unit 105 checks the selected criterion using criterion information 002 of the criterion DB D002. Here, the criterion information is information in which an allowable range for the item is associated with each criterion (small classification). Therefore, the shape check unit 105 realizes the check by determining whether the new subject information is included in the allowable range … the output unit 106 outputs the selected criterion and the check result to the screen 103.” Therefore, the corresponding structure for each “unit” limitation is interpreted as a processing unit or dedicated hardware configured to execute the specific algorithms or process steps for performing the recited functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " … the calculated criterion … " in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, claim 1 recites “a priority calculation unit that calculates a priority of the criterion indicating the check item,” but later recites “an output unit that outputs the calculated criterion according to the priority.” The limitation “the calculated criterion” renders the scope of the claim unclear because the claim previously recites calculating a priority of the criterion, not calculating the criterion itself. Therefore, it is unclear whether the output unit outputs the criterion according to the calculated priority, outputs a calculated priority associated with the criterion, or outputs some separately calculated criterion. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as reciting an output unit that outputs the criterion according to the calculated priority.
Claims 6 and 11 recite similar limitations " … the calculated criterion …," and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "… the designation from a user for the output criterion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 15 recite similar limitations "… the designation from a user for the output criterion," and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites “A storage medium storing program for causing a design support device for performing a check of a defect in design to function as a computer.” However, the limitation is unclear because the program is recited as causing the design support device to function as a computer. The claim later recites that “the program causes the design support device to function as” a storage unit, an input unit … Thus, it is unclear whether the program causes a computer to function as the design support device, or whether the program causes an already existing design support device to function as a computer. Further, the relationship between the storage medium, the program, the computer, and the design support device is unclear. In particular, the claim does not clearly identify what structure executes the program and what structure is caused to perform the functions. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as a storage medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to function as a design support device.
The remaining claims are dependent upon one of the claims listed above and rejected for the same reason.
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.
The claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated
the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019, as well as subsequent USPTO eligibility guidance updates,
and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-5 are directed to device and fall within the statutory category of machine;
Yes, Claims 6-10 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
No, Claims 11-15 are directed to storage medium and fail to fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
“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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to subject matter that does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 11 is directed to a storage medium storing a program. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the recited “storage medium” encompasses signals per se. For example, the specification states that “the computer program can be distributed by being distributed via a network or stored in a storage medium.” Thus, the specification does not clearly limit the recited storage medium to a physical storage medium and does not exclude transmission of the program by propagating electromagnetic waves or other signals. The further recitation of “program” only serves to limit the content carried by the signal. Accordingly, claim 11 encompasses signals per se, which are not within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(I). It is suggested that claim 11 be amended to recite a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to overcome this rejection.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “calculates a priority of the criterion indicating the check item for the product of the new subject corresponding to the input new subject information, using the correspondence table,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing/reviewing a correspondence table in which past subject information for products designed in the past is associated with criteria indicating check items, observing/reviewing new subject information for a product of a new subject to be checked, comparing the new subject information with the past subject information in the correspondence table, identifying one or more past products or past subject records that are similar or relevant to the new subject information, and determining, assigning, or ranking the relative importance of a criterion indicating a check item for the new product based on the identified similar/relevant past subject information. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I.
In MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
The claim 1 does recite a mathematical concept.
As explained in MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” as an abstract idea).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) recites: ““A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping … For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Claim 1, The limitations of “calculates a priority of the criterion indicating the check item for the product of the new subject corresponding to the input new subject information, using the correspondence table,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, can be reasonably considered to represent mathematical concept, expressed in words including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. As recites in specification: for example, [0029]-[0031]. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The elements of claims 6 and 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claims 6 and 11 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 6 and 11 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 6 and 11: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “A design support device for performing a check of a defect in design” and “A design support method using a design support device for performing a check of a defect in design” and “A storage medium storing program for causing a design support device for performing a check of a defect in design to function as a computer, wherein the program causes the design support device to function as” and “a storage unit” and “an input unit” and “a priority calculation unit” and “an output unit,” which are merely recitations of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitation “stores a correspondence table in which past subject information for a product designed in the past is associated with a criterion indicating a check item” and “receives input of new subject information of a product of a new subject to be checked” and “outputs the calculated criterion according to the priority,” which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., storing and receiving data) and data outputting (i.e., outputting/displaying data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 8 and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, … iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, …
In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a design support device and multiple units. These limitations merely recite generic computer components used in their ordinary capacities to store information, receive information, process data and output information. Therefore, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, merely apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 6 and 11 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process and/or mathematical concepts, or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 6 and 11.
Claim 2 recites “The design support device according to claim 1, wherein the past subject information includes a delivery destination of the product, design information, a manufacturing apparatus, and a process of the check. ”
The limitation merely further defines the type of past subject information associated with correspondence table stored in the storage unit. It merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., storing data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 2 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “The design support device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a feature extraction unit that extracts a feature amount of the design information and the process; and
a setting unit that creates the correspondence table using the feature amount and the past subject information.”
The limitation merely extend the abstract idea of observing or reviewing design information and process information, identifying relevant features from the design information and process, and organizing the identified feature with past subject information into a correspondence table for use in prioritizing check criteria. For example, a person is capable of reviewing design information and a check process, identifying relevant feature, and creating a table associating the features with past subject information. Further, the limitation “a feature extraction unit” and “a setting unit,” which are merely recitations of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 3 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “The design support device according to claim 3, wherein the feature extraction unit extracts a shape, material, and strength of the product based on the design information and an order of the criteria based on the process, as the feature amount.”
The limitation merely extend the abstract idea of observing or reviewing design information and process information, identifying product features from the design information, and identifying an order of check criteria from the process. For example, a person is capable of reviewing design information to identify the shape, material, and strength of a product, and reviewing a check process to identify the order of criteria to be applied. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 4 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “The design support device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a shape check unit that executes a check of the product of the new subject according to the designation from a user for the output criterion.”
The limitation merely extend the abstract idea of observing or reviewing a user designated check criterion and determining whether the product of the new subject satisfies the designated check criterion. For example, a person is capable of reviewing an output criterion selected by a user and check the product of the new subject according to the selected criterion. Further, the limitation “a shape check unit,” which is merely recitation of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 7-10 and 12-15 recite the similar elements as claims 2-5, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ITO
WO2018051413A1.
Claim 1, ITO teaches A design support device for performing a check of a defect in design (Page.2, “(1) … The check list creation device 2 is a server device equipped with a check list creation and display function for creating a check list of drawings and displaying the created check list on the client terminal 4 …” Page.3, “(2) … The check list creation and display function according to the present embodiment … the degree of correlation between the defects that occurred … in the past and each check item of the check list used at that time And selects a check item to be posted on the check list based on the correlation degree of each calculated check item so as to create a check list …”), comprising:
a storage unit that stores a correspondence table in which past subject information for a product designed in the past is associated with a criterion indicating a check item (Page.2, para.3 from last, “The auxiliary storage device 12 is composed of a large-capacity storage device such as a hard disk device or an SSD (Solid State Drive), for example, and is used to hold programs and various kinds of information for a long term. The drawing configuration information table 18, the defect information table 19, the check list digest information table 20, and the check item management table 21, which will be described later, are stored and held in the auxiliary storage device 12.” Page.6, para.6, “The check list digest information table 20 is a table used for holding and managing the check list digest information 42 (FIG. 2) described above. As shown in FIG. 6, the check list digest information table 20 includes a product ID column 20 A, a figure number column 20 B, A part name column 20C, a drawing combination column 20D, a product name column 20E, a check digest date column 20F, a check digest item column 20G and a check digest time column 20H.” Page.6, para.8, “In the check digest date column 20 F, the date of the day of drawing check of the corresponding drawing combination using the corresponding check list is stored. Further, in the check digest item column 20G, the identification number of the check item which has been digested at that time in the corresponding check list (hereinafter referred to as a check item identification number) is stored. The check item identification number is a number unique to the check item managed in the check item management table 21 described later with reference to FIG. 7.” Page.6, para.11, “The item number column 21 A stores the check item identification number of the corresponding check item, and the check item column 21 B stores specific contents of the check item.” Examine note: the reference teaches auxiliary storage device 12 stores checklist digest information table 20 and check item management table 21. The product ID, figure number, part name, drawing combination, and product name in table 20 correspond to the claimed past subject information for a product designed in the past. The check digest item column in table 20 associates the past subject information with a check item identification number. The check item identification number is unique to a check item managed in table 21, and table 21 stores the specific contents of the corresponding check item. Under BRI, the specific contents of the corresponding check item correspond to a criterion indicating a check item.);
an input unit that receives input of new subject information of a product of a new subject to be checked (Page.3, second paragraph from last, “When the check list creating apparatus 2 creates a check list for drawing combination of each part of a new product, the user operates the client terminal 4 (FIG. 1) to display a predetermined GUI screen, and on the GUI screen (Hereinafter referred to as a "target product") and drawing construction information 45 representing the drawing composition of each part of the product (hereinafter referred to as "target product") and the time allowed for the drawing check from the viewpoint of the entire manufacturing process of the target product (Hereinafter referred to as design process information 46) and information for specifying the model of the target product (hereinafter referred to as model specification information 47), a check list creation command (hereinafter referred to as " , This is called a check list creation command) … When the check list creation command is input, the client terminal 4 checks the check list creation instruction including the drawing configuration information 45, the design process information 46, and the model specification information 47 via the network 3 (FIG. 1) To the list creation device 2.” Examiner note: the reference teaches receiving, for a target product, drawing configuration information, design process information, and model specification information through a user input an transmitting that information to the check list creation device);
a priority calculation unit that calculates a priority of the criterion indicating the check item for the product of the new subject corresponding to the input new subject information, using the correspondence table (Page.4, para.1 and 3, “Upon receiving the check list creation instruction, the check list creation apparatus 2 assigns the same product ID or product name as the product ID or product name of the target product based on the model specification information 47 included in the check list creation instruction The drawing configuration information 40 of each part of the existing product, the defect information 41 concerning the defect occurring at the time of manufacturing the existing product, and the check list digest information 42 on the check list corresponding to each part of the existing product From the storage device 12 … At this time, the check list creation device 2 arranges the mandatory check items at the top of the check list 48, and for the other check items, after the mandatory check items, arranges them in descending order of correlation with the drawing combinations …” page.7, “(3-1) … According to the processing procedure shown in FIG. 8, the correlation degree calculating unit 15 calculates the correlation degree between the drawing combination of each part of the target product and the defect occurred at the time of product manufacture in the past, respectively, and these defects And the check items posted on the check list 48 used at that time, respectively.” Examiner note: the reference teaches calculates correlation degrees using stored past product information, defect information, and checklist digest information for existing products, together with the drawing combination of the target product. The calculated correlation degree is then used to arrange check items in descending order of correlation. Under BRI, using the calculated correlation degree to determine the order of check items corresponds to calculating a priority of the criterion indicating the check item for the target product); and
an output unit that outputs the calculated criterion according to the priority (Page.4, para.6, “Then, the check list creating apparatus 2 generates screen data of a list of check lists (hereinafter referred to as "check list list") for each drawing combination of the target products created in this way (for each part), and displays the generated screen By transmitting the data to the client terminal 4, the check list list is displayed on the output device 33 (FIG. 1) of the client terminal 4.” Page.4, second paragraph from last, “In the check item column 48C, specific contents of the corresponding check item are displayed, and in the priority number column 48A, a number (priority number) representing the priority of the corresponding check item is displayed. As for the priority number, a check item with a higher priority to be digested is given a smaller number.”).
The elements of claims 6 and 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claims 6 and 11 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO
WO2018051413A1 in view of Ben-Bassat US20180196409A1.
Claim 2, ITO teaches The design support device according to claim 1, wherein the past subject information includes (Page.2, para.6, “As shown in FIG. 2, the check list creating apparatus 2 includes drawing structure information 40 showing the drawing composition of each of the products of the past manufactured products (hereinafter referred to as existing products), manufacturing structure information of the existing products Defect information 41 indicating the contents of defects (defects) that occasionally occurred, and a digestion history of check items indicating which check items in the corresponding checklist were digested in the drawing check process of drawing combination of each part of these existing products, And check item information 43 in which all check items that can be posted in the check list are registered in the auxiliary storage device 12.” Examiner note: the reference teaches information is directed to existing products, i.e., products manufacture in the past. The drawing structure/drawing composition information corresponds to the claimed “design information” because it describes the design configuration of the past product. The checklist digestion history corresponds to claimed “a process of the check” because it identifies what checklist items were performed during the drawing check process for the past product.).
However, ITO fails to teach past subject information includes a delivery destination of the product and a manufacturing apparatus.
Ben-Bassat teaches past subject information includes a delivery destination of the product and a manufacturing apparatus ([0001] … The software automatically records the specifics of each product manufactured, as a digital twin, which includes for instance, batch details, personnel and equipment used, temperatures recorded during manufacture, etc. [0018] The status is sensed and tracked from receipt of the material, until shipment of the final product. [0097] Referring to FIG. 7, in case of a recall, the digital thread records may be searched to identify all products made from a specific faulty batch of material 106, even after the product has been deployed down the supply chain to a remote end user. The digital thread may be identified and the end customer notified 108. The reference teaches storing historical information for manufactured products as digital twins/digital threads. The recorded “equipment used” corresponds to claimed manufacturing apparatus because it identifies the equipment used to manufacture the product. Further, the reference also teaches tracking the product from receipt of material until shipment of the final product and further identities deployment of the product to a remote end user/end customer. Under BRI, tracking shipment of the final product to a remote end user/end customer corresponds to the claim delivery destination of the product.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ITO to incorporate the teachings of Ben-Bassat, and apply digital twin or digital thread recording of manufactured product information including equipment used during manufacture and shipment/end-user traceability in order to enable searchable backtracking of manufacturing history and more rapidly identify products associated with manufacturing defects. In this case, ITO teaches storing past/existing product information, including design information and check process information, and using the stored past/existing product information to determine check items for a target product. Ben-Bassat teaches automatically recording the specifics of each manufactured products as a digital twin/digital thread, including equipment used during manufacture, and tracking the product from receipt of material until shipment of the final product to a remote end user/end customer. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of improving the ability to identify relevant past product circumstances when generating check items for a target product.
The elements of claims 7 and 12 are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Therefore, the elements of claims 7 and 12 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO and Ben-
Bassat as applied to claim 2, 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Amer US20190310608A1.
Claim 3, ITO and Ben-Bassat fails to teach, but Amer teaches The design support device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a feature extraction unit that extracts a feature amount of the design information and the process ([0034] Historical three-dimensional (3D) model (e.g. CAD) files of parts to be manufactured and their corresponding machining CAM program files are provided as input to the data processing system. The CAD files comprise a 3D model description of a part with one or more features. The CAM program files include a description of the set of machining methods for manufacturing the parts with their features.” [0036]-[0039], “From the data of the files of Table 1, associations between recognized features and their corresponding extracted machining methods are generated as follows: running feature recognition on the CAD file to identify the features present in a part; for each recognized feature, finding the machining method that was applied by the CAM engineer for manufacturing such recognized feature; for each recognized feature, associating its corresponding machining method.”); and
a setting unit that creates the correspondence table using the feature amount and the past subject information ([0040], “Descriptions of features and of machining methods are stored in a database. Feature description include, but are not limited to, feature types and feature characteristics/attributes. Machining description include, but are not limited to, machining operations sequence (e.g. type, properties, . . . ), the tools (e.g. type, sizes, . . . ).” [0041], “ … Table 2 illustrates the found associations between features and machining methods for features of type AA having as attribute a diameter. Table 2 schematically represents the information stored in a machining knowledge database for recognized features of a given type having certain attributes and their corresponding associated machining methods.” Examiner note: the reference teaches using historical CAD files and corresponding CAM program files as input, where the CAD files describe past part designs and the CAM program files describe machining methods used to manufacture the parts. The reference performs feature cognition on the CAD files to identify features of the part, which corresponds to extracting a feature amount of the design information because the recognized features include feature types and feature attributes/characteristics. The reference also finds the machining method applied to each recognize feature from the CAM program files, which corresponds to extracting a feature amount of the process because the machining method information includes process related information such as machining operations, operation sequence, and tools. The reference further teaches storing the associations between the recognized feature descriptions and the corresponding machining method descriptions in a machining knowledge database. Under BRI, the stored database of associations corresponds to a correspondence table created using the extracted feature mount and the historical CAD/CAM information).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ITO and Ben-Bassat to incorporate the teachings of Amer, and apply historical CAD/CAM feature recognition and machining method association techniques to stored past product information in order to automatically generate a machine knowledge dataset from prior design/manufacturing examples, reduce manual work in defining reusable process knowledge, and reduce errors. In this case, ITO teaches storing past/existing product information, including design information and check process information, and using the stored past/existing product information to determine check items for a target product. Ben-Bassat teaches supplementing historical product records with product specific manufacturing and shipment traceability information. Amer teaches using historical CAD files and corresponding CAM program files, recognizing feature from the CAD files, identifying machining methods applied to the recognized feature from the CAM program files, associating the recognized features with the corresponding machining method, and storing the feature descriptions and machining method descriptions in a machining knowledge database. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of allowing prior design and manufacturing examples to be automatically reused in a structured knowledge database, thereby reducing the need for manual definition of reusable manufacturing knowledge and making the resulting product checking and design support process have fewer costs and errors.
The elements of claims 8 and 13 are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Therefore, the elements of claims 8 and 13 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO and Ben-
Bassat and Amer as applied to claim 3, 8 and 13 above, and further in view of Wang US20100185312A1.
Claim 4, ITO and Ben-Bassat fail to teach, but Amer teaches The design support device according to claim 3, wherein the feature extraction unit extracts a shape, material, ([0051] At act 305, data of a set of features is received as input. Each feature data describes a feature to be manufactured. The description of the feature comprises a feature type and a set of feature attributes. In other embodiments, the data of the feature is extracted from data of a part by recognizing the feature in the part. In the art, there are several data formats for providing 3D descriptions of parts and their features; an example of it is a CAD format or other 3D formats like e.g. Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) and STEP formats. Feature and part data may be in form of files or data in a database, in a repository or in the cloud. [0032] … As used herein, the term “type” of a feature denotes the class of the feature (e.g. shape and material). As used herein, the terms “attributes” or “characteristics” of a feature interchangeably denote the dimensions of the feature (e.g. diameter) and the surface finishing of the feature (e.g. threaded). [0034] Historical three-dimensional (3D) model (e.g. CAD) files of parts to be manufactured and their corresponding machining CAM program files are provided as input to the data processing system. The CAD files comprise a 3D model description of a part with one or more features. The CAM program files include a description of the set of machining methods for manufacturing the parts with their features. [0036]-[0039], “From the data of the files of Table 1, associations between recognized features and their corresponding extracted machining methods are generated as follows: running feature recognition on the CAD file to identify the features present in a part; for each recognized feature, finding the machining method that was applied by the CAM engineer for manufacturing such recognized feature; for each recognized feature, associating its corresponding machining method. [0040] Descriptions of features and of machining methods are stored in a database. Feature description include, but are not limited to, feature types and feature characteristics/attributes. Machining description include, but are not limited to, machining operations sequence (e.g. type, properties, . . . ), the tools (e.g. type, sizes, . . . ). [0041] The machining methods typically include the sequence of operations required to machine the feature, the machining parameters (e.g. speed and feed, step over and other parameters), the assigned tool/s and its/their characteristics. Examiner note: The reference teaches extracting feature information from prior CAD/part data and associating the extracted feature information with corresponding process information from prior CAM/machining data. The extracted feature information includes feature type and feature attributes, and the reference identifies shape and material as examples of feature type. The corresponding process information includes machining methods and the sequence of machining operations used to manufacture the recognized feature).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ITO and Ben-Bassat to incorporate the teachings of Amer, and apply feature type/feature attribute extraction and machining operation sequence extraction from historical CAD/CAM examples in order to automatically reuse previously defined machining knowledge, reuse the manual work required to define machining method databases, reduce costs, and reduce errors. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of allowing prior design and manufacturing examples to be automatically reused in a structured knowledge database, thereby reducing the need for manual definition of reusable manufacturing knowledge and making the resulting product checking and design support process have fewer costs and errors.
However, ITO and Ben-Bassat and Amer fail to teach extracts strength
Wang teaches extracts strength of the product based on the design information ([0011] … The residual stress evaluation tool comprises a stress level calculator that calculates data of the working database to evaluate the casting design for stress levels and for a potential for a formation of cracks in the casting defined by the casting design to determine a heat treat-ability of the casting design. [0053] As such, residual stresses produced during the solidification and quench stages may be calculated using data of the knowledge database 24 and/or data of the working database 26, such as, but not limited to, material constitutive models, quench media, geometric design, the metal or alloy used, and mold materials used. [0054] The stress level calculator 34 may use empirical equations to calculate residual stress and distortion with geometric designs, metals or alloys, selected casting processes, selected quench medias, etc., of the casting design 12. Examiner note: the reference teaches calculating an evaluating stress levels, residual stress, and potential crack formation for a product defined by a casting design. Under BRI, calculating or evaluating the stress/crack information corresponds to extracting strength related product information because it derives a strength related characteristics of the product. The reference further teaches that the calculation uses design information, including geometric design and material information of the casting design).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ITO and Ben-Bassat and Amer to incorporate the teachings of Wang, and apply stress level and residual stress calculation based on casting design information in order to quickly and reliably evaluate manufacturability of a product design and determine whether the product design may result in stress or crack formation. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of allowing strength related product characteristics to be determined from design information, thereby allowing the resulting product checking and design support process to more reliably identify manufacturability issues related to stress and crack formation.
The elements of claims 9 and 14 are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Therefore, the elements of claims 9 and 14 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITO
WO2018051413A1 in view of Zhang US20150227672A1.
Claim 5, ITO fails to teach, but Zhang teaches The design support device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a shape check unit that executes a check of the product of the new subject according to the designation from a user for the output criterion ([0045] In operation 510, a user selection is received from a user of the EDA tool. In some embodiments, the user selection comprises a selected feature of the semiconductor device. In some embodiments, the selected feature comprises one or more displayed features associated with a portion of the semiconductor device or one or more drawing features associated with a drawing illustrating the portion of the semiconductor device. In some embodiments, the one or more displayed features comprise layer information, semiconductor characteristics, shape information, a selected DRM or a selected DRC. In some embodiments, a selected DRM is one or more entries contained in the second DRM selected by the user. [0050] In operation 520, a DRC is performed for the one or more selected features received from the user. In some embodiments, the DRC is configured to perform a design rule check for the user selection. In some embodiments, the DRC includes execution of the one or more design rules associated with the user selection. Examiner note: the reference teaches receiving a user selection of a selected feature, where the selected feature includes shape information or drawing features. The reference then performs a design rule check for the selected feature received from the user and executes design rules associated with the user selection).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ITO to incorporate the teachings of Zhang, and apply design rule checking for a suer selected design feature by executing design rules associated with the user selection in order to provide flexible interaction with design rule check associated with specific feature of a product design and verify compliance of the selected features with corresponding design rules. In this case, ITO teaches outputting criteria for checking a target product. Zhang teaches receiving a user selection of a selected feature, where the selected feature may include shape information or drawing features, and performing a design rule check that executes design rules associated with the user selection. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of allowing the user to designate a specific design feature or criterion for checking, and allowing the resulting product checking and design support process to execute the corresponding check for the user selected feature.
The elements of claims 10 and 15 are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Therefore, the elements of claims 10 and 15 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. 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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights