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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is
requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
specification.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “the processing circuitry configured to display distances between a plurality of the cable trays arranged in the layer .” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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, 11 and 12 recite “the specified layer” and “the specified position of the cable path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 1, 11 and 12 recite “the first object being a piece of equipment having a start point, the second object being a piece of equipment having an end point;” and “route the cable to two of the pieces of equipment selected from among the plurality of pieces of equipment based on the specified position of the cable path and positions of the start point and the end point of the set plurality of pieces of equipment.” It is unclear whether “first and second objects” are same as “two of the pieces of equipment selected from among the plurality of pieces of equipment”
Claim 1, 11 and 12 recite “receive a specification of a position of a layer in which a cable is to be laid” and “setting a position of a cable path indicating a spatial path in which a cable is to be arranged”. It is unclear “a cable” is the same cable or different cable. Similar issue ”a cable” for claim 2 and 3.
Therefore, the claims have an indefinite scope. Since dependent claims are dependent on the independent claims and included all the limitations of the independent claims, the dependent claims recite the indefinite scope in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is eligible under Step 1 for being directed to processes.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites
receive a specification of a position of a layer in which a cable is to be laid, the layer being in a rack placed in a virtual space; (input data)
receive, from a user, an operation of arranging a first object and a second object in the virtual space, the first object being a piece of equipment having a start point, the second object being a piece of equipment having an end point; (mental process)
determine the specified layer and setting a position of a cable path indicating a spatial path in which a cable is to be arranged; (mental process)
route the cable to two of the pieces of equipment selected from among the plurality of pieces of equipment based on the specified position of the cable path and positions of the start point and the end point of the set plurality of pieces of equipment. (mental process)
The claimed concept is a method of routing cable between equipment in a virtual space is directed to “Mental Process” grouping. These limitations can be performed in a human mind or using pen and paper.
Therefore, claim 1 is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The receiving data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving input for use in the evaluation step) and amounts to mere data inputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recites additional elements such as “processing circuitry”. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e. processing circuitry). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See applicant’s specification Fig 1 and 2 for generic computer description.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two applies here in 2B. The present claim does not recite any limitation that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Same conclusion for dependent claims of claim 1. See below.
2. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in routing the cable, the processing circuitry configured to: route a cable tray between two of the pieces of equipment selected, the cable tray being to house the cable, and specify a cable to be housed in the routed cable tray. (mental process)
3. The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in routing the cable tray, a cable tray in which a cable having a longer laying distance among a plurality of cables to be arranged in the cable path is housed is arranged closer to a piece of equipment to which the cable is to be connected, in a vertical direction in the layer. (mental process)
4. The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry configured to receive editing of a layout of a plurality of the cable trays in the specified layer according to an operation by a user. (mental process)
5. The apparatus according to claim 4, wherein in editing a layout of the cable trays, the processing circuitry configured to display distances between a plurality of the cable trays arranged in the layer . (mental process)
6. The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry further configured to calculate a necessary width dimension of the cable tray based on sectional areas and a number of cables to be arranged in the cable path. (mental process)
7. The apparatus according to claim 6, wherein in editing a layout of the cable tray, the cable tray to be arranged in the layer is provisionally arranged based on the calculated necessary width dimension. (mental process)
8. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in routing the cable, the processing circuitry configures to display a line connecting the pieces of equipment in the virtual space. (output data)
9. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cable path includes ladder paths that extend in a vertical direction, and the processing circuitry further configured to integrate, from among the ladder paths, ladder paths that are arranged adjacent to one another. (mental process)
10. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cable path includes ladder paths that extend in a vertical direction, and the processing circuitry further configured to separate the ladder paths as a plurality of ladder paths that are arranged spaced from one another in parallel. (mental process)
Same conclusion for independent claims 11 and 12. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claims 1-12 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al (US 2010/0235147 A1), hereinafter Okada.
1. An apparatus for designing a plant, the apparatus comprising: Okada discloses processing circuitry configured to:
Okada [0035] “As shown in FIG. 1, this invention comprises a cable list file 100 in which are stored cable specifications and similar, a cable specification file 200 in which are stored cable cross-sectional areas according to the cable specifications, an area coordinate file 300 in which are stored coordinates comprised by a prescribed rectangular parallelepiped area, and a control unit 400 which executes various functions.”
Okada discloses receive a specification of a position of a layer in which a cable is to be laid, the layer being in a rack placed in a virtual space;
Okada: [0036] “As shown in FIG. 2, the cable list file 100 comprises cable specifications, starting point information (corresponding to "starting point data"), via information (corresponding to "via data"), and end point information (corresponding to "end point data").” See Fig. 4.
[0061] “Here, the xyz component conversion section 470 arranges the x-y components continuously, divides the z components, and converts the cable housing component route into xyz components so as to be arranged at both ends of the X-Y components. In plant design, x-y components correspond to cable housing component routes positioned in a certain floor plane, and the amount of material resources of cable housing components here is large as well, so that the need arises to arrange the x-y components continuously, whereas z components correspond to routes which pass through boundary between floors within the plant, and so are divided and arranged at both ends of the x-y components.”
Examiner interpreted cable housing correspond to the layer being in a rack and layer correspond to floor.
Okada discloses receive, from a user, an operation of arranging a first object and a second object in the virtual space, the first object being a piece of equipment having a start point, the second object being a piece of equipment having an end point;
Okada: [0075-0076] “Next, the action of this embodiment having the configuration described above is explained below, referring to FIG. 14 to FIG. 20, taking as an example the cable housing components of cable which connects equipment of an electric power plant. When executing generation of three-dimensional arrangement adjustment CAD data for cable housing components using the control unit 400, the user must make the initial settings indicated below. That is, as shown in FIG. 15, as initial settings the input files to be applied, the output files, and the processing conditions are set. ….” See Fig. 8 and 9 for example.
Okada dicloses determine the specified layer and setting a position of a cable path indicating a spatial path in which a cable is to be arranged; and
Okada: [0076-0077] “Specifically, the user designates the cable list file, area coordinate file, and cable specification file as the input files, as indicated in the settings screen of FIG. 15. And as the output file, a three-dimensional cable housing component model file, cable list file (reflecting processing results), and processing process log file indicating processing processes in the control unit 400, are designated. Further, as processing conditions, the processing filters for selecting cable specifications for processing, cross-section settings to specify cable cross-sectional shapes and similar, route-related settings such as the bending radii of bending components inserted into bending portions of cable housing components, and other settings are designated. As these processing filters, conforming cable housing components, voltages, cable types, and other cable specifications may be used; specifications which are not of interest for processing are designated arbitrarily.”
Okada discloses route the cable to two of the pieces of equipment selected from among the plurality of pieces of equipment based on the specified position of the cable path and positions of the start point and the end point of the set plurality of pieces of equipment.
Okada: [0078] “Cross-sectional settings set cross-sections for cable housing components when converted into three-dimensional CAD data; cable occupancies, whether cross-section widths and heights are fixed or variable, intervals between cable housing components, and locus line display, hollow display, and other methods of cross-section representation are designated. When setting a route, settings relating to routes for cable housing components converted into three-dimensional CAD data are made, and for example the horizontal bending radius and vertical bending radius for bending components inserted into bending portions of a route, arm lengths from area faces, and interface lengths to equipment (panels), are designated.”
Regarding Claim 11 and 12, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed above for substantially similar rationale of claim 1.
2. The apparatus according to claim 1, Okada discloses wherein in routing the cable, the processing circuitry configured to: route a cable tray between two of the pieces of equipment selected, the cable tray being to house the cable, and specify a cable to be housed in the routed cable tray.
Okada: [0081-0082] “And, when this processing by the cable information acquisition section 420 is performed, the route generation section 430 generates a cable housing component route for arrangement of cable housing components, connecting the equipment (panel) corresponding to the starting point information in the prescribed area to the equipment (panel) corresponding to the end point information in the prescribed area, based on information relating to cables acquired by the cable information acquisition section 420 (S1406). Here, the route generation section 430 generates a route, based on interface directions corresponding to the starting point and end point information read from the cable list file 100 by the cable information acquisition section 420, so as to connect the cable housing component from the upward direction to the equipment (panel) in the area if the interface direction is the upward direction, or to connect the cable housing component to the equipment (panel) from the downward direction if the interface direction is the downward direction. …”
3. The apparatus according to claim 2, Okada discloses wherein in routing the cable tray, a cable tray in which a cable having a longer laying distance among a plurality of cables to be arranged in the cable path is housed is arranged closer to a piece of equipment to which the cable is to be connected, in a vertical direction in the layer.
Okada: [0086] “And, the xyz component conversion section 470 automatically converts each interval between areas of cable housing components corrected by the route correction section 460 into arrangement of xyz components, and when a plurality of intervals between areas exist, combines the cable housing component routes converted into xyz components of intervals between areas (S1411). Route correction has already been performed by the route correction section 460 taking the shortest distances between areas into consideration, so that the xyz component conversion section 470 combines cable housing component routes between areas converted into xyz components so as to connect representative points on the faces of each area.”
4. The apparatus according to claim 2, Okada discloses wherein the processing circuitry configured to receive editing of a layout of a plurality of the cable trays in the specified layer according to an operation by a user.
Okada: [0076] “… Specifically, the user designates the cable list file, area coordinate file, and cable specification file as the input files, as indicated in the settings screen of FIG. 15. And as the output file, a three-dimensional cable housing component model file, cable list file (reflecting processing results), and processing process log file indicating processing processes in the control unit 400, are designated.”
5. The apparatus according to claim 4, Okada discloses wherein in editing a layout of the cable trays, the processing circuitry configured to display distances between a plurality of the cable trays arranged in the layer .
Okada: [0093] “Here, an example of display of the three-dimensional cable housing component route model generated as described above is explained in order below, referring to FIG. 16 to FIG. 20. As in the actual cable list file 100 shown in FIG. 16, it is assumed that there are five cables having common cable specifications, starting point area, via areas 1 and 2, and end point area, that the starting point area and the equipment (panel) of the starting point in this area are common, and that end point equipment (panels) are installed as equipment 1 to 5 within the end point area. The interface direction of the starting point and end point are "downward".”
6. The apparatus according to claim 2, Okada discloses wherein the processing circuitry further configured to calculate a necessary width dimension of the cable tray based on sectional areas and a number of cables to be arranged in the cable path.
Okada: [0067] “Further, when calculating the width from the cross-sectional area with the height fixed, as shown in FIG. 10C the cross-sectional area of the cable housing component calculated by the cable housing component cross-sectional area calculation section 481 is divided by the preset (fixed) height to calculate the (variable) width, and this (variable) width and (fixed) height are added to the cross-section of the cable housing component route.”
7. The apparatus according to claim 6, Okada discloses wherein in editing a layout of the cable tray, the cable tray to be arranged in the layer is provisionally arranged based on the calculated necessary width dimension.
Okada: [0070] “Further, the three-dimensional model conversion section 480 has a locus line display section 483 for displaying a locus line for the cross-sections of cable housing components of a converted three-dimensional cable housing component route model. As shown in FIG. 11A, when locus line display is set during the initial settings, this locus line display section 483 displays locus lines in the centers of cross-sections, or in the centers of bottom faces, of cable housing components. Whether the location of display is the cross-section center or the center of the bottom face must be set in advance at the time of initial settings.”
8. The apparatus according to claim 1, Okada discloses wherein in routing the cable, the processing circuitry configures to display a line connecting the pieces of equipment in the virtual space.
Okada: See Fig. 20.
9. The apparatus according to claim 1, Okada discloses wherein the cable path includes ladder paths that extend in a vertical direction, and the processing circuitry further configured to integrate, from among the ladder paths, ladder paths that are arranged adjacent to one another.
Okada: See Fig. 18-20.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al (US 2010/0235147 A1), hereinafter Okada, in view of Logatoc (US 8831920 B2).
10. The apparatus according to claim 1, Okada discloses wherein the cable path includes ladder paths that extend in a vertical direction,
Okada: See Fig. 20.
Okada does not appear to explicitly disclose the processing circuitry further configured to separate the ladder paths as a plurality of ladder paths that are arranged spaced from one another in parallel.
However, Logatoc discloses the processing circuitry further configured to separate the ladder paths as a plurality of ladder paths that are arranged spaced from one another in parallel (col 9 line 62 - col 10 line 19) “FIG. 4 shows a portion of a cable route within a modeled physical environment. The cable route includes a cable tray lane 405 and a cable tray lane 410 running parallel and vertical to one another. Lanes 405 and 410 are separated by a distance 420 and fastened to a ceiling via anchors 415. As used herein, a "lane" is a single cable tray pathway running between a start point and destination point. As used herein, a "cable route" refers to a pathway of cables between a start point and a destination point. A cable route can include one lane of cable trays or multiple lanes of cable trays. Multi-lane cable routes are beneficial since they provide separation between different cable bundles having different voltages and amperages. Distance 420 provides a safe barrier for isolating different cable types. Distance 420 can be defined by government regulation, industry standards, customer specifications, design engineer preferences, or any other source capable of determining an appropriate barrier between different cable bundles. Engine 205 is configured to recommend number of lanes to use per route, and assign cables to each lane, based on selection criteria 213 and assembly rules stored in library 207. Engine 205 advantageously provides a complete solution for automating the design of cabling layouts by simultaneously determining cable routes, tray sizes, lanes per route, and cable-to-lane assignment.” Examiner considers “assigning” correspond to “separating”.
Okada and Logatoc are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D layout design.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Okada and Logatoc before him or her, to modify the model of Okada to include the cabling layout feature of Logatoc because this combination improves the 3D layout design.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been (col 3line 1-9) “Automated cabling layout design tools should manage all aspects of cabling layout including routing, modeling, assigning trays, sizing trays, and taking into account industry practices. It would be advantageous to provide a design tool that can recommend and automatically construct a model of a cabling layout within a 3D environment based on preselected end points and cable attributes. It would also be advantageous to provide a design tool that tracks changes to the 3D environment and automatically adjusts the cabling layout accordingly.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Okada and Logatoc to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUEN-MEEI GAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/CHUEN-MEEI GAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights