DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is responsive to application filed on 06/27/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method.
Claims 10-15 are directed to a product.
Claims 16-20 are directed to a system.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for generating a CAD feature tree from a discrete geometrical representation of a mechanical product, the method comprising:
obtaining the discrete geometrical representation [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
obtaining a set of CAD features, each CAD feature comprising an interior and a boundary, the boundary representing a surface covered by the feature and the interior representing a surface erased by the feature [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering]; and
determining an optimal sequence of CAD features from the set of CAD features providing an optimal surface covering of the discrete geometrical representation [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “obtaining” and “CAD”. The additional element of “obtaining” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). The additional element of “CAD” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “obtaining” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “CAD” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 8, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 9, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per Claims 10-15, claims 10-15 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-6, and as such are similar rejected.
As per claim 16, independent claim 16 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are similar rejected. Further, claim 16 recites additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “processors” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 17-20, claims 17-20 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-6, and as such are similar rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 17 of co-pending Application No. 18/341,933 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as seen below.
Instant Application No. 18/341,870
Co-pending Application 18/341,933
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a CAD feature tree from a discrete geometrical representation of a mechanical product, the method comprising:
obtaining the discrete geometrical representation;
obtaining a set of CAD features, each CAD feature comprising an interior and a boundary, the boundary representing a surface covered by the feature and the interior representing a surface erased by the feature; and
determining an optimal sequence of CAD features from the set of CAD features providing an optimal surface covering of the discrete geometrical representation.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a CAD feature tree from a discrete geometrical representation of a mechanical product, the method comprising:
obtaining the discrete geometrical representation;
obtaining a set of CAD features; and
determining one or more sequences of CAD features from the set of CAD features by optimizing an objective function which: rewards a fitting of the discrete geometrical representation by a candidate sequence, and penalizes a complexity of a candidate sequence, the complexity of a candidate sequence being a function of the candidate sequence that increases when adding a feature to the candidate sequence.
10. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program having instructions for performing a computer-implemented method for generating a CAD feature tree from a discrete geometrical representation of a mechanical product, the method comprising:
obtaining the discrete geometrical representation;
obtaining a set of CAD features, each CAD feature comprising an interior and a boundary, the boundary representing a surface covered by the feature and the interior representing a surface erased by the feature; and
determining an optimal sequence of CAD features from the set of CAD features providing an optimal surface covering of the discrete geometrical representation.
13. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program having instructions for performing a computer-implemented method for generating a CAD feature tree from a discrete geometrical representation of a mechanical product, the method comprising:
obtaining the discrete geometrical representation;
obtaining a set of CAD features; and
determining one or more sequences of CAD features from the set of CAD features by optimizing an objective function which: rewards a fitting of the discrete geometrical representation by a candidate sequence, and penalizes a complexity of a candidate sequence, the complexity of a candidate sequence being a function of the candidate sequence that increases when adding a feature to the candidate sequence.
16. A system comprising: a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program including instructions for generating a CAD feature tree from a discrete geometrical representation of a mechanical product that when executed by the processor causes the processor to be configured to
obtain the discrete geometrical representation;
obtain a set of CAD features, each CAD feature comprising an interior and a boundary, the boundary representing a surface covered by the feature and the interior representing a surface erased by the feature; and
determine an optimal sequence of CAD features from the set of CAD features providing an optimal surface covering of the discrete geometrical representation.
17. A system comprising: a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for generating a CAD feature tree from a discrete geometrical representation of a mechanical product that when executed by the processor causes the processor to be configured to:
obtain the discrete geometrical representation,
obtain a set of CAD features, and
determine one or more sequences of CAD features from the set of CAD features by optimizing an objective function which: rewards a fitting of the discrete geometrical representation by a candidate sequence, and penalizes a complexity of a candidate sequence, the complexity of a candidate sequence being a function of the candidate sequence that increases when adding a feature to the candidate sequence.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,117,308 issued to Nag et al in view of US Publication No. 2023/0111750 A1 Guo et al.
1. Nag et al discloses a computer-implemented method for generating a CAD feature tree from a discrete geometrical representation of a mechanical product, the method comprising:
obtaining the discrete geometrical representation (See: Col. 3 lines 62-65; creating a direct-edit geometry from one or more geometrical faces of the selected features and the other features, and combining the history-based data structure and the direct-edit geometry; Col. 8 lines 2-6, As shown, the CAD model 500 includes a direct-edit feature body having the geometrical features of the original Base 505, geometrical features of the original Cut 510, and geometrical features of the original Slot 515 features);
obtaining a set of CAD features (See: col. 5 lines 4-9, The solution automatically determines a set of history-based features that need to be replaced by a set of direct-edit features, creating a body of direct-edit features from the determined set of features, and creating a model that contains both the converted direct-edit features and any remaining history-based features. Such a CAD model containing both kinds of features will herein be referred to as a hybrid model).
Nag et al does not specify but Guo et al discloses each CAD feature comprising an interior and a boundary, the boundary representing a surface covered by the feature and the interior representing a surface erased by the feature (See: [0038] Referring to FIGS. 1-7, in some embodiments, the method 200 may include receiving or generating or otherwise defining a plurality of different three-dimensional component CAD models 300 (e.g., boundary definition models), corresponding to components 302A, 302B, 302C, . . . 302n intended for manufacture, with the computer system 20 using a suitable CAD system, platform, or software (which may also be referred to herein as a “CAD environment”) (step 202); [0039] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary CAD model 300A-n which includes a plurality of geometric features 304 defined in the exemplary CAD model 300A-n by a respective plurality of component surfaces. The plurality of geometric features 304 may be, for example, exterior and/or interior surfaces of the CAD model 300A-n for a modeled component); determining an optimal sequence of CAD features from the set of CAD features providing an optimal surface covering of the discrete geometrical representation (See: [0045] the inspection sequence 320 may include an inspection frequency for each common geometric feature 308. For example, the inspection sequence 320 may specify that 1 in 5, 1 in 10, 1 in 20, etc. instances of a component geometric feature 316 of the manufactured components 302A-n, corresponding with a particular common geometric feature 308 of the plurality of different CAD models 300, must be inspected. As used herein, the term “component geometric feature” refers to a geometric feature of a component 302A-n which corresponds to a particular common geometric feature 308 of the plurality of different CAD models 300. In some embodiments, the inspection sequence 320 may include instructions to measure or otherwise inspect one or more geometric characteristics 318 of the inspected component geometric feature 316 which may represent a dimension, shape, or other attribute of the inspected component geometric feature 316. The measured geometric characteristics 318 may be compared to predetermined geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) data for the geometric characteristics 318 or to digital equivalent geometric characteristics 322 associated with the common geometric feature 308 and/or stored with the CAD models 300A-n or in the database 26, memory 24, or external devices 32. For example, the inspection sequence 320 may require verifying that a first geometric characteristic (e.g., a width) 318 of the component geometric feature is within a first tolerance and a second geometric characteristic (e.g., a length) of the component geometric feature is within a second tolerance. The inspection sequence 320 may require measurements between various discrete points of the component geometric feature 316).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine component inspection system and method as taught by Guo et al to CAD model of Nag et al would be to establish in an inspection plan based on demonstrated process capability (Guo et al, [0002]).
2. Nag et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of an optimal sequence of CAD features further comprises iterations of: adding a CAD feature to an intermediate sequence resulting from a previous iteration by selecting the CAD feature from the set, the selection being based on a surface covering score, and wherein the surface covering score represents a surface covering reachable when adding the CAD feature to the intermediate sequence (See: Col. 1 lines 52-64, Two approaches for building CAD models are history-based modeling and direct-edit modeling, the later of which may be referred to as variational modeling. In general, with history-based CAD models, the modeling process may begin by creating a base feature controlled by a two-dimensional sketch, which then may be extruded using, by way of non-limiting example, a revolve, a loft, or a sweep operation. Each subsequent feature of a model of a part is built on a previous feature, and therefore is dependent on a previously created feature. When the design engineer edits a feature of the history-based model, the model is rolled back to a previous state; the state prior to the creation of subsequent dependent features; Col. 3 lines 42-41, After conversion, direct-edit modeling may be performed on the direct-edit features of the model. Such direct-edit modeling may include, for example, transforming a geometrical surface, adding dimensions and constraints between surfaces of a direct-edit-feature's body, and modifying geometries by modifying dimensions and constraints).
3. Nag et al discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the selection of the added CAD feature is based on a highest surface covering score (See: Col. 5 line 60 through Col. 6 line 20, After sorting the features, a conversion queue may be generated containing Base 105, Cut 120, and Slot 130. An example conversion process may proceed as follows: (1) The Base history-based feature 105 becomes the initial body of the direct-edit geometrical body, and the Base history-based feature 105 is removed from the history-based CAD model. (2) The geometrical surfaces of the Cut history-based feature 120 are embedded in the direct-edit geometrical body, and the Cut history-based feature 120 is removed from the history-based CAD body. (3) The geometrical surfaces of the Slot history-based feature 130 are then included in the direct-edit geometrical body, and the Slot history-based feature 130 is removed from the history-based CAD body. (4) At this point the conversion queue is empty, and the direct-edit geometrical body becomes the final body of the direct-edit portion of the hybrid model. (5) The history-based body, which includes the remaining Hole, Pattern, and Protrusion history-based features 110, 115, 125, are applied to the direct-edit geometrical body, such that a new feature structure of the CAD model includes the body having the Hole history-based feature 110, Pattern history-based feature 115, and Protrusion history-based feature 125 dependent on the direct-edit geometrical body).
4. Guo et al discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the surface covering score further comprises a ratio between a surface covering reachable by the intermediate sequence when adding the CAD feature, and a surface area of the discrete geometrical representation (See: par [0045] the inspection sequence 320 may include instructions to measure or otherwise inspect one or more geometric characteristics 318 of the inspected component geometric feature 316 which may represent a dimension, shape, or other attribute of the inspected component geometric feature 316. The measured geometric characteristics 318 may be compared to predetermined geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) data for the geometric characteristics 318 or to digital equivalent geometric characteristics 322 associated with the common geometric feature 308 and/or stored with the CAD models 300A-n or in the database 26, memory 24, or external devices 32. For example, the inspection sequence 320 may require verifying that a first geometric characteristic (e.g., a width) 318 of the component geometric feature is within a first tolerance and a second geometric characteristic (e.g., a length) of the component geometric feature is within a second tolerance. The inspection sequence 320 may require measurements between various discrete points of the component geometric feature 316).
5. Nag et al discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each iteration further comprises: removing the added CAD feature from the set of CAD features (See: Col. 3 lines 57-65, Some embodiments may generate a conversion queue from the selected features and the other features based on the dependency relationships between the selected features and the other features, and converting the features may include removing the selected features and the other features from the history-based data structure, creating a direct-edit geometry from one or more geometrical faces of the selected features and the other features, and combining the history-based data structure and the direct-edit geometry).
6. Nag et al discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the selection of the CAD feature further comprises excluding from the selection: CAD features which cover a surface already covered by a result of the intermediate sequence, and/or CAD features which erase at least a part of a surface covered by the feature added at the previous iteration and covering a surface that is not erased by the feature added at the previous iteration (See: Col. 3 lines 57-65, Some embodiments may generate a conversion queue from the selected features and the other features based on the dependency relationships between the selected features and the other features, and converting the features may include removing the selected features and the other features from the history-based data structure, creating a direct-edit geometry from one or more geometrical faces of the selected features and the other features, and combining the history-based data structure and the direct-edit geometry).
7. Nag et al discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, before the determining of an optimal sequence: computing a feature order of the set of CAD features, the feature order ordering a first CAD feature relative to a second feature when the first CAD feature erases at least a part of a surface covered by the second CAD feature and covering a surface that is not erased by the second CAD feature (See: Col. 7 lines 4-28, The example process 300 creates an analysis queue that includes the selected features to be converted (step 310). The process 300 then checks whether the analysis queue is empty (step 315). While not empty, the first feature listed in the analysis queue is removed from the analysis queue (step 320) and added to a dependency graph (step 325), which is built during the example process 300. The topological faces of the removed feature are identified (step 335). The example process 300 then determines features that neighbor the identified faces and that were created prior to the creation of the identified features (step 340), and those neighboring features are then designated in the dependency graph as parents of the removed feature (step 345). The neighboring features are also added to the analysis queue (step 350), allowing the process 300 to recursively analyze each parent feature upon which a feature in the analysis queue depends. Thus, parent features are identified by analyzing the history of feature creation and determining how the topology of the selected features was constructed. For example, if a Feature B contributed to the construction of a Feature A and Feature B has faces adjacent to faces of Feature A, then Feature B is designated as a parent of Feature A. In order to convert Feature A to a direct-edit feature, Feature B has to be converted as well. A feature may have multiple parent features (e.g., direct parents and grandparents)).
8. Nag et al discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, before the determining of an optimal sequence: partitioning a surface of the discrete geometrical representation into meta-faces each comprising one or more faces, each two faces of a meta-face being erased and covered by same one or more CAD features (See: Fig. 5 and corresponding texts).
9. Nag et al discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: building a feature tree from the determined optimal sequence of CAD features (See: Col. 7 lines 4-16, the example process 300 creates an analysis queue that includes the selected features to be converted (step 310). The process 300 then checks whether the analysis queue is empty (step 315). While not empty, the first feature listed in the analysis queue is removed from the analysis queue (step 320) and added to a dependency graph (step 325), which is built during the example process 300. The topological faces of the removed feature are identified (step 335). The example process 300 then determines features that neighbor the identified faces and that were created prior to the creation of the identified features (step 340), and those neighboring features are then designated in the dependency graph as parents of the removed feature (step 345)).
As per Claims 10-20, claims 10-20 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-6, and as such are similar rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 08/31/2026
Prosecution Insights