DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 13 September 2023 are 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:
Claim 1:
by a layout identification device … (Specification ¶37 “layout identification device 106 may be implemented in programmable hardware devices such as programmable gate arrays, programmable array logic, programmable logic devices, or the like.”)
Each “device” is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 14 recite “for each of the one or more deform nodes, identifying edges of a deform face corresponding to a deform node of the one or more deform nodes.” The term “deform face” is new terminology. See MPEP §2173.05(a) (“Claim language may not be ‘ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.’ In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014).”). Specification paragraphs 53-55 discuss the “deform face;” however, the Specification in paragraphs 53-55 uses the same language as found in claims 7 and 14. Accordingly, the Specification does not further clarify the metes and bounds of what a “deform face” is.
Specification ¶60 and figure 8B state “faces 812a, 812b corresponding to deform nodes are illustrated in the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model 800.” This is an apparent illustrated example of a deform face, but it is unclear what characteristics make this example a deform face.
Claims 7 and 14 semi-define the “deform face” as “corresponding to a deform node.” However, the nature of this correspondence is unclear. The deform nodes themselves are loosely defined with a negative definition in Specification ¶60 “when geometry type of a face is other than a planar, a cylindrical or a conical type.” This is a negative definition which merely says it is not a plane, cylinder, or cone. Broad negative definitions are permitted (see MPEP §2173.05(i)) but the breadth of the definition of the “deform node” here renders the definition of the corresponding “deform face” unclear.
Because the “deform face” is unclear, downstream definitions which rely upon the deform face such as the “uniform points,” “closest points,” and “unfold points” are similarly unclear.
Claims 7 and 14 around line 17 recite “the internally controlled parameter.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6 and 13 provide antecedent basis but claims 7 and 14 do not depend from claims 6 and 13.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A method for identifying an unfold layout for a Boundary Representation (B-rep)-based Computer Aided Design (CAD) sheetmetal model, the method comprising:
validating, , the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model when at least one planar face is present in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model and thickness of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model is within a predefined thickness threshold;
upon successful validation, determining, …, a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of faces of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model for generating an unfold graph, wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a root node, one or more plane nodes, one or more cone nodes, and one or more deform nodes, and wherein the root node corresponds to a reference planar face selected from the at least one planar face;
processing, …, the one or more plane nodes and subsequently the one or more cone nodes for generating a first partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more plane nodes and the one or more cone nodes;
processing, …, the one or more deform nodes for generating a second partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more deform nodes; and
joining, …, the first partial unfold layout with the second partial unfold layout for generating the unfold layout for the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model.
Validating the thickness of a B-rep CAD sheet metal model corresponds with making a mental process comparison involving evaluation and/or judgment.
Determining a plurality of nodes of the planar faces, cone nodes, or deform nodes is an identification process. Determining the nodes of the model corresponds with mental processes in the form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Processing the cone and deform nodes for generating respective partial unfold layouts corresponds with further mental process evaluation and judgment.
Joining the respective partial unfold layouts together is a process capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
by a layout identification device
The layout identification device invokes §112(f) as discussed above. Accordingly, the layout device is interpreted as corresponding with Specification ¶37 “layout identification device 106 may be implemented in programmable hardware devices such as programmable gate arrays, programmable array logic, programmable logic devices, or the like.”
The programmable gate array, array logic, and/or logic device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of nodes is interconnected through a plurality of links, in the unfold graph, and wherein the plurality of links corresponds to a plurality of edges connecting the plurality of faces in the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model.
A graph with respective links and nodes corresponding with the topological connections of the edges and faces of the B-rep is capable of being considered mentally and sketched with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, …, a presence of at least one planar face in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model; and
selecting, …, the reference planar face from the at least one planar face in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model.
Determining and selecting a reference planar face from the B-rep model is mental process steps in the form of observation, evaluation, and judgment.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
by the layout identification device
The layout identification device invokes §112(f) as discussed above. Accordingly, the layout device is interpreted as corresponding with Specification ¶37 “layout identification device 106 may be implemented in programmable hardware devices such as programmable gate arrays, programmable array logic, programmable logic devices, or the like.”
The programmable gate array, array logic, and/or logic device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising determining, …, the thickness of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model based on the reference planar face.
Determining the thickness of the B-rep based on a reference planar face is an evaluation capable of being performed mentally.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
by the layout identification device
The layout identification device invokes §112(f) as discussed above. Accordingly, the layout device is interpreted as corresponding with Specification ¶37 “layout identification device 106 may be implemented in programmable hardware devices such as programmable gate arrays, programmable array logic, programmable logic devices, or the like.”
The programmable gate array, array logic, and/or logic device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
processing the one or more plane nodes;
determining outer boundaries of one or more planar faces, wherein the one or more planar faces corresponds to the one or more plane nodes; and
applying transformations corresponding to the one or more plane nodes computed during generation of the unfold graph, to the one or more planar faces, wherein the transformations corresponding to the one or more plane nodes are computed based on transformations of corresponding parent nodes.
Processing plane nodes to determine outer boundaries corresponds with further mental process observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Applying transformation encompasses mental shape visualization and/or sketching with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The method of clam 1, further comprising:
processing the one or more cone nodes;
determining uniform points on edges associated with one or more conical faces and cylindrical faces by discretizing the edges based on an internally controlled parameter, wherein the one or more conical faces and cylindrical faces corresponds to the one or more cone nodes;
applying transformations with respect to unfold paths corresponding to the one or more cone nodes computed during generation of the unfold graph, to the uniform points for computing transform points, wherein the transformations corresponding to the cone nodes are computed based on a plurality of predefined parameters of the one or more conical faces and cylindrical faces and transformations of corresponding parent nodes, and wherein the plurality of predefined parameters comprises a bend angle and a radius; and
creating outer boundary curve segments of the one or more conical faces and cylindrical faces based on the transform points.
Processing cone nodes to determine edges of conical and cylindrical faces is a geometric shape visualization capable of being performed mentally with respective observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Applying transformation encompasses mental shape visualization and/or sketching with the aid of pen and paper.
Creating an outer boundary curve segment on the conical faces can be visualized mentally and/or sketching with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the second partial unfold layout comprises:
processing the one or more deform nodes;
for each of the one or more deform nodes, identifying edges of a deform face corresponding to a deform node of the one or more deform nodes;
identifying one or more common edges between the edges of the deform face and edges of adjacent parent faces of the deform face, wherein an unfold path corresponding to the deform face is computed based on the one or more common edges; and
determining presence of curve segments based on unfold layouts created for adjacent faces corresponding to adjacent nodes, wherein the determining the presence comprises:
when the curve segments are present:
creating a copy of the curve segments; and when the curve segments are absent:
determining uniform points on the edges of the deform face by discretizing edges, based on the internally controlled parameter;
determining the closest points on the one of the edges of the unfold path;
determining a plurality of unfold points corresponding to the closest points based on a proportional relationship between the edges of the deform face and corresponding edges of the edges of adjacent parent faces of the deform face in the first partial unfold layout;
calculating a plurality of transformed unfold points corresponding to the plurality of unfold points based on a translation direction computed for each of the plurality of unfold points, and a length between each of the uniform points on an edge of the deform face and a corresponding closest point on another edge of unfold path of the deform face located at shortest distance;
computing an estimated curve segment through the plurality of transformed unfold points; and
generating the second partial unfold layout using the curve segments.
Processing the deform nodes to identify edges is a geometric shape visualization capable of being performed mentally with respective observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Identifying common edges between edges of the deform face and adjacent faces on an unfold path is a geometric shape visualization capable of being performed mentally with respective observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Determining curve segments based on unfold layouts for adjacent faces is further recitation of geometric shape visualization capable of being performed mentally with respective observation, evaluation, and judgment.
When the curve segments are absent, determining a set of uniform points on the edges and closest points is geometric evaluation and judgment which can be performed mentally. Evaluating a proportional relationship based on the geometry is geometric evaluation and judgment which can be performed mentally.
An estimated curve can be computed with mental evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion; further with the aid of pen and paper to sketch an estimated curve segment.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. A system for identifying an unfold layout for a Boundary Representation (B-rep)-based Computer Aided Design (CAD) sheetmetal model, the system comprising:
…
validate the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model when at least one planar face is present in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model and thickness of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model is within a predefined thickness threshold;
upon successful validation, determine a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of faces of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model for generating an unfold graph, wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a root node, one or more plane nodes, one or more cone nodes, and one or more deform nodes, and wherein the root node corresponds to a reference planar face selected from the at least one planar face;
process the one or more plane nodes and subsequently the one or more cone nodes for generating a first partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more plane nodes and the one or more cone nodes; process the one or more deform nodes for generating a second partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more deform nodes; and
join the first partial unfold layout with the second partial unfold layout for generating the unfold layout for the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model.
Validating the thickness of a B-rep CAD sheet metal model corresponds with making a mental process comparison involving evaluation and/or judgment.
Determining a plurality of nodes of the planar faces, cone nodes, or deform nodes is an identification process. Determining the nodes of the model corresponds with mental processes in the form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Processing the cone and deform nodes for generating respective partial unfold layouts corresponds with further mental process evaluation and judgment.
Joining the respective partial unfold layouts together is a process capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
a processor; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
… for identifying an unfold layout for a Boundary Representation (B-rep)-based Computer Aided Design (CAD) sheetmetal model, the computer-executable instructions configured for:
validating the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model when at least one planar face is present in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model and thickness of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model is within a predefined thickness threshold;
upon successful validation, determining a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of faces of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model for generating an unfold graph, wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a root node, one or more plane nodes, one or more cone nodes, and one or more deform nodes, and wherein the root node corresponds to a reference planar face selected from the at least one planar face;
processing the one or more plane nodes and subsequently the one or more cone nodes for generating a first partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more plane nodes and the one or more cone nodes;
processing the one or more deform nodes for generating a second partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more deform nodes; and
joining the first partial unfold layout with the second partial unfold layout for generating the unfold layout for the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model.
Validating the thickness of a B-rep CAD sheet metal model corresponds with making a mental process comparison involving evaluation and/or judgment.
Determining a plurality of nodes of the planar faces, cone nodes, or deform nodes is an identification process. Determining the nodes of the model corresponds with mental processes in the form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Processing the cone and deform nodes for generating respective partial unfold layouts corresponds with further mental process evaluation and judgment.
Joining the respective partial unfold layouts together is a process capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions
The non-transitory computer-readable medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, Liu “Geometric Design of Flat Layout of 3D Folded Structures” Thesis, Nanyang Tech. U. (2005) [herein “Wei”] in view of US patent 10,360,320 B2 Paavilainen, et al. [herein “Paavilainen”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A method for identifying an unfold layout for a Boundary Representation (B-rep)-based Computer Aided Design (CAD) sheetmetal model.” Wei page XI Abstract discloses “methodologies that were developed for unfolding 3D folded structures so as to generate the required flat layouts.”
Claim 1 further recites a plurality of times “by a layout identification device.” Wei page 110 chapter 7 discloses “All of the three versions of the unfolding methodology have been implemented in a C++ program that runs on a personal computer. …. Hardware: Intel Pentium IV 2.4GHz CPU, 512M memory and 80G hard disk.” The personal computer and/or CPU corresponds with the layout identification device.
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising: validating, …, the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model when at least one planar face is present in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model and thickness of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model is within a predefined thickness threshold.” Wei page 146 section 8.2.4 discloses “Currently, the generated flat layouts are only schematic. Thickness of materials and securing of the folded 3D structures are not taken into consideration. However, for real applications, these factors have to be considered. …. In the future, an algorithm for automatically assigning flaps and adjusting flat layouts for material thickness is desired.”
Wei does not explicitly disclose validating thickness; however, in analogous art of computer-aided modeling of bent sheet objects, Paavilainen column 5 lines 8-9 teaches “BREP, may be used as well with the restriction that thickness has to be more than zero.” Meeting the restriction that the thickness has to be more than zero is validating the thickness according to a threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wei and Paavilainen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use Brep thickness validation into the system of geometric design of flay layouts for the advantageous purpose such that “bend parameters are calculated in step 309 by using a multi-objective optimization” and computer creation of unbent objects. See Paavilainen column 8 lines 11-13. Wei section 4.3.3 discloses various “optimality criteria.”
Claim 1 further recites “upon successful validation, determining, …, a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of faces of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model for generating an unfold graph.” Wei section 4.2.1 “Creation of Graph Representation from B-rep Models” discloses “Given a B-rep model, we need to create a graph representation for it first.”
Wei page 23 section 2.2.3 disclose “In a [Face Adjacency Graph (FAG)], nodes represent object faces, whereas edges and vertices are encoded into arcs and hyperarcs.”
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a root node, one or more plane nodes, …, and wherein the root node corresponds to a reference planar face selected from the at least one planar face.” Wei page 39 discloses “This algorithm begins with choosing a root face f from the structure and adding it to the layout N.” Choosing a root face corresponds with selecting a reference planar face as a root node.
Claim 1 further recites “one or more cone nodes.” Wei does not explicitly disclose cone nodes; however, in analogous art of computer-aided modeling of bent sheet objects, Paavilainen column 2 lines 29-30 disclose “A bend may be a conical bend or a cylindrical bend.” Paavilainen column 8 lines 17-20 teach “The edges selected as a result of running the multi-objective optimization model used are such that a conical or a cylindrical bend object can be added between the selected edges.” Links corresponding with conical or cylindrical bends correspond with cone nodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wei and Paavilainen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use conical bends into the system of geometric design of flay layouts for the advantageous purpose such that “bend parameters are calculated in step 309 by using a multi-objective optimization” and computer creation of unbent objects. See Paavilainen column 8 lines 11-13. Wei section 4.3.3 discloses various “optimality criteria.”
Claim 1 further recites “and one or more deform nodes.” The claim language “deform nodes” is interpreted in light of Specification ¶60 and broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP §2111.01.
Wei page 45 fourth paragraph disclose “When the structure contains non-straight common edges, they must be seams. This is because non-straight lines cannot be used as fold lines.” Wei page 47 first paragraph disclose “Secondly, we tried to deal with structures containing complex features that may pose problems to the existing unfolding methods (e.g. the situation where more than two faces sharing one single edge).” Wei page 78 section 5.1.1 defines “Hyper-Common Edges.” Both seams and hyper-common edges correspond with deformation nodes.
Claim 1 further recites “processing, …, the one or more plane nodes and subsequently the one or more cone nodes for generating a first partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more plane nodes and the one or more cone nodes; processing, …, the one or more deform nodes for generating a second partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more deform nodes.” Wei page 91 algorithm 5.1 discloses “Construct the corresponding [Face Adjacency Graph (FAG)] G” and “Construct all hyper-common edge sequences.” Constructing the layout for the face-adjacency graph and constructing the layout corresponds with processing all the nodes including the plane nodes, cone nodes, and deform nodes. See further Wei page 108 algorithm 6.3 “Subdividing FAG methodology.”
Wei page 97 section 6.1.2 disclose “The previous section discussed the possibility of decomposing a FAG into a set of sub-FAGs by using exclusive link sets.” Respective subdivided FAGs correspond with second partial unfold layouts.
Claim 1 further recites “and joining, …, the first partial unfold layout with the second partial unfold layout for generating the unfold layout for the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model.” Wei page 108 algorithm 6.3 “Subdividing FAG methodology” discloses “Output Li” corresponding with outputting the layout. Outputting the layout corresponds with outputting a joined first and second partial layouts of respective subdivisions for generating the overall unfold layout for the B-rep CAD sheet metal model.
Claim 2 further recites “2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of nodes is interconnected through a plurality of links, in the unfold graph, and wherein the plurality of links corresponds to a plurality of edges connecting the plurality of faces in the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model.” Wei section 4.2.1 “Creation of Graph Representation from B-rep Models” discloses “Given a B-rep model, we need to create a graph representation for it first.”
Wei page 23 section 2.2.3 disclose “In a [Face Adjacency Graph (FAG)], nodes represent object faces, whereas edges and vertices are encoded into arcs and hyperarcs.”
Wei page 24 section 2.3.1 disclose:
The terms ‘nodes’ and ‘links’ will be used for the rest of this thesis in place of ‘vertices’ and ‘edges’ of a graph, respectively. And a graph G can in turn be represented as G=(N,L). A link can be denoted by (i.j), where i and j denote the two nodes that are connected by that link, respectively.
Claim 3 further recites “3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, …, a presence of at least one planar face in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model; and selecting, …, the reference planar face from the at least one planar face in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model.” Wei page 39 discloses “This algorithm begins with choosing a root face f from the structure and adding it to the layout N.” Choosing a root face corresponds with selecting a reference planar face as a root node.
Claim 4 further recites “4. The method of claim 3, further comprising determining, …, the thickness of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model based on the reference planar face.” Wei does not explicitly disclose validating thickness; however, in analogous art of computer-aided modeling of bent sheet objects, Paavilainen column 5 lines 32-34 teach “Once the geometry is known, it is checked in step 303, whether or not the thicknesses of the selected flat sheet objects are the same.” Ensuring the thickness of the flat objects are the same corresponds with determining the thickness of the B-rep based on the thickness of a reference planar face(s).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wei and Paavilainen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use Brep thickness validation into the system of geometric design of flay layouts for the advantageous purpose such that “bend parameters are calculated in step 309 by using a multi-objective optimization” and computer creation of unbent objects. See Paavilainen column 8 lines 11-13. Wei section 4.3.3 discloses various “optimality criteria.”
Claim 5 further recites “5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: processing the one or more plane nodes; determining outer boundaries of one or more planar faces, wherein the one or more planar faces corresponds to the one or more plane nodes.” Wei page 12 section 2.2.1 first bullet item disclose “All the faces must be simply connected, with no holes in them, and bounded by a single loop of edges, i.e. they are topological disks.” The bounded loop of edges for the faces correspond with a defined outer boundary of the planar faces.
Claim 5 further recites “and applying transformations corresponding to the one or more plane nodes computed during generation of the unfold graph, to the one or more planar faces, wherein the transformations corresponding to the one or more plane nodes are computed based on transformations of corresponding parent nodes.” Wei page 91 algorithm 5.1 discloses “Construct the corresponding [Face Adjacency Graph (FAG)] G” and “Construct all hyper-common edge sequences.” Constructing the layout for the face-adjacency graph and constructing the layout corresponds with processing all the nodes including the plane nodes, cone nodes, and deform nodes. See further Wei page 108 algorithm 6.3 “Subdividing FAG methodology.”
Wei page 97 section 6.1.2 disclose “The previous section discussed the possibility of decomposing a FAG into a set of sub-FAGs by using exclusive link sets.” Respective subdivided FAGs correspond with second partial unfold layouts.
Processing according to algorithm 6.3 (which cites algorithm 5.1) corresponds to applying respective transformations to the nodes of the graph to compute the layout.
Claim 6 further recites “6. The method of clam 1, further comprising: processing the one or more cone nodes; determining uniform points on edges associated with one or more conical faces and cylindrical faces by discretizing the edges based on an internally controlled parameter, wherein the one or more conical faces and cylindrical faces corresponds to the one or more cone nodes.” Wei does not explicitly disclose cone nodes; however, in analogous art of computer-aided modeling of bent sheet objects, Paavilainen column 2 lines 29-30 disclose “A bend may be a conical bend or a cylindrical bend.” Paavilainen column 8 lines 17-20 teach “The edges selected as a result of running the multi-objective optimization model used are such that a conical or a cylindrical bend object can be added between the selected edges.” Links corresponding with conical or cylindrical bends correspond with cone nodes.
Paavilainen column 12 lines 8-10 teach “The radius for the cylinder may be selected to be the biggest radius fitting inside the discontinuity boundaries.” Defining the radius of the cylinder corresponds with determining respective cylindrical faces.
Paavilainen column 12 lines 27-33 teach:
If the object is geometrically unfoldable, the curved section and zero or more sheet extension sections are determined in step 314, The curved section is defined by the lateral boundaries and discontinuity boundaries, and sheet extension sections are placed to areas in which the edge of the flat sheet object does not overlap with the discontinuity boundary,
Defining the curved section corresponds with determining points of the conical faces.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wei and Paavilainen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use conical bends into the system of geometric design of flay layouts for the advantageous purpose such that “bend parameters are calculated in step 309 by using a multi-objective optimization” and computer creation of unbent objects. See Paavilainen column 8 lines 11-13. Wei section 4.3.3 discloses various “optimality criteria.”
Claim 6 further recites “applying transformations with respect to unfold paths corresponding to the one or more cone nodes computed during generation of the unfold graph, to the uniform points for computing transform points, wherein the transformations corresponding to the cone nodes are computed based on a plurality of predefined parameters of the one or more conical faces and cylindrical faces and transformations of corresponding parent nodes, and wherein the plurality of predefined parameters comprises a bend angle and a radius.” Paavilainen column 11 line 64 to column 12 line 6 teach:
Therefore one can determine a slope of the conical bend by determining two or more radiuses, and then using them to determine the slope, for example, Another way to determine the slope is to use an angle between the planes and an angle between the discontinuity border and the intersection line, A radius may be obtained by determining a distance between discontinuity boundaries, the orientation of the discontinuity boundaries in relation to the intersection line between the planes of the flat sheet objects, and then using the angle between the flat sheet portions.
The obtained angle and radius correspond with a bend angle and radius parameters.
Claim 6 further recites “and creating outer boundary curve segments of the one or more conical faces and cylindrical faces based on the transform points.” Paavilainen column 3 lines 12-23 teaches:
a lateral boundary may follow the directrix curve of a bent object's surface. A discontinuity boundary 111, 111' is a boundary between the curved section and a flat sheet object, or if there is a sheet extension section between the curved section and the flat sheet object, the discontinuity boundary is between the sheet extension section and the curved section. If the curved section 120 has a cylindrical geometry, the discontinuity boundaries 111, 111' are parallel to each other. If the curved section 120 has a conical geometry, the discontinuity boundaries 111, 111' intersect on an intersection line of flat sheet object planes between which the curved section 120 will be created.
The boundary between the curved section and the flat sheet objects corresponds with create outer boundaries of the curve segments of the conical section.
Claim 8 recites “8. A system for identifying an unfold layout for a Boundary Representation (B-rep)-based Computer Aided Design (CAD) sheetmetal model.” Wei page XI Abstract discloses “methodologies that were developed for unfolding 3D folded structures so as to generate the required flat layouts.”
Claim 8 further recites “the system comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor.” Wei page 110 chapter 7 discloses “All of the three versions of the unfolding methodology have been implemented in a C++ program that runs on a personal computer. …. Hardware: Intel Pentium IV 2.4GHz CPU, 512M memory and 80G hard disk.” The CPU corresponds with a processor coupled to the 512M memory.
Claim 8 further recites “wherein the memory stores processor instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: validate the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model when at least one planar face is present in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model and thickness of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model is within a predefined thickness threshold.” Wei page 146 section 8.2.4 discloses “Currently, the generated flat layouts are only schematic. Thickness of materials and securing of the folded 3D structures are not taken into consideration. However, for real applications, these factors have to be considered. …. In the future, an algorithm for automatically assigning flaps and adjusting flat layouts for material thickness is desired.”
Wei does not explicitly disclose validating thickness; however, in analogous art of computer-aided modeling of bent sheet objects, Paavilainen column 5 lines 8-9 teaches “BREP, may be used as well with the restriction that thickness has to be more than zero.” Meeting the restriction that the thickness has to be more than zero is validating the thickness according to a threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wei and Paavilainen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use Brep thickness validation into the system of geometric design of flay layouts for the advantageous purpose such that “bend parameters are calculated in step 309 by using a multi-objective optimization” and computer creation of unbent objects. See Paavilainen column 8 lines 11-13. Wei section 4.3.3 discloses various “optimality criteria.”
Claim 8 further recites “upon successful validation, determine a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of faces of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model for generating an unfold graph.” Wei section 4.2.1 “Creation of Graph Representation from B-rep Models” discloses “Given a B-rep model, we need to create a graph representation for it first.”
Wei page 23 section 2.2.3 disclose “In a [Face Adjacency Graph (FAG)], nodes represent object faces, whereas edges and vertices are encoded into arcs and hyperarcs.”
Claim 8 further recites “wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a root node, one or more plane nodes, …, and wherein the root node corresponds to a reference planar face selected from the at least one planar face.” Wei page 39 discloses “This algorithm begins with choosing a root face f from the structure and adding it to the layout N.” Choosing a root face corresponds with selecting a reference planar face as a root node.
Claim 8 further recites “one or more cone nodes.” Wei does not explicitly disclose cone nodes; however, in analogous art of computer-aided modeling of bent sheet objects, Paavilainen column 2 lines 29-30 disclose “A bend may be a conical bend or a cylindrical bend.” Paavilainen column 8 lines 17-20 teach “The edges selected as a result of running the multi-objective optimization model used are such that a conical or a cylindrical bend object can be added between the selected edges.” Links corresponding with conical or cylindrical bends correspond with cone nodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wei and Paavilainen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use conical bends into the system of geometric design of flay layouts for the advantageous purpose such that “bend parameters are calculated in step 309 by using a multi-objective optimization” and computer creation of unbent objects. See Paavilainen column 8 lines 11-13. Wei section 4.3.3 discloses various “optimality criteria.”
Claim 8 further recites “and one or more deform nodes.” The claim language “deform nodes” is interpreted in light of Specification ¶60 and broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP §2111.01.
Wei page 45 fourth paragraph disclose “When the structure contains non-straight common edges, they must be seams. This is because non-straight lines cannot be used as fold lines.” Wei page 47 first paragraph disclose “Secondly, we tried to deal with structures containing complex features that may pose problems to the existing unfolding methods (e.g. the situation where more than two faces sharing one single edge).” Wei page 78 section 5.1.1 defines “Hyper-Common Edges.” Both seams and hyper-common edges correspond with deformation nodes.
Claim 8 further recites “process the one or more plane nodes and subsequently the one or more cone nodes for generating a first partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more plane nodes and the one or more cone nodes; process the one or more deform nodes for generating a second partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more deform nodes.” Wei page 91 algorithm 5.1 discloses “Construct the corresponding [Face Adjacency Graph (FAG)] G” and “Construct all hyper-common edge sequences.” Constructing the layout for the face-adjacency graph and constructing the layout corresponds with processing all the nodes including the plane nodes, cone nodes, and deform nodes. See further Wei page 108 algorithm 6.3 “Subdividing FAG methodology.”
Wei page 97 section 6.1.2 disclose “The previous section discussed the possibility of decomposing a FAG into a set of sub-FAGs by using exclusive link sets.” Respective subdivided FAGs correspond with second partial unfold layouts.
Claim 8 further recites “and join the first partial unfold layout with the second partial unfold layout for generating the unfold layout for the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model.” Wei page 108 algorithm 6.3 “Subdividing FAG methodology” discloses “Output Li” corresponding with outputting the layout. Outputting the layout corresponds with outputting a joined first and second partial layouts of respective subdivisions for generating the overall unfold layout for the B-rep CAD sheet metal model.
Dependent claims 9-13 are substantially similar to claims 2-6 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites “15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions.” Wei page 110 chapter 7 discloses “All of the three versions of the unfolding methodology have been implemented in a C++ program that runs on a personal computer. …. Hardware: Intel Pentium IV 2.4GHz CPU, 512M memory and 80G hard disk.” The program corresponds with executable instructions. The memory corresponds with non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim 15 further recites “for identifying an unfold layout for a Boundary Representation (B-rep)-based Computer Aided Design (CAD) sheetmetal model.” Wei page XI Abstract discloses “methodologies that were developed for unfolding 3D folded structures so as to generate the required flat layouts.”
Claim 15 further recites “the computer-executable instructions configured for: validating the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model when at least one planar face is present in the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model and thickness of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model is within a predefined thickness threshold.” Wei page 146 section 8.2.4 discloses “Currently, the generated flat layouts are only schematic. Thickness of materials and securing of the folded 3D structures are not taken into consideration. However, for real applications, these factors have to be considered. …. In the future, an algorithm for automatically assigning flaps and adjusting flat layouts for material thickness is desired.”
Wei does not explicitly disclose validating thickness; however, in analogous art of computer-aided modeling of bent sheet objects, Paavilainen column 5 lines 8-9 teaches “BREP, may be used as well with the restriction that thickness has to be more than zero.” Meeting the restriction that the thickness has to be more than zero is validating the thickness according to a threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wei and Paavilainen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use Brep thickness validation into the system of geometric design of flay layouts for the advantageous purpose such that “bend parameters are calculated in step 309 by using a multi-objective optimization” and computer creation of unbent objects. See Paavilainen column 8 lines 11-13. Wei section 4.3.3 discloses various “optimality criteria.”
Claim 15 further recites “upon successful validation, determining a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of faces of the B-rep based CAD sheetmetal model for generating an unfold graph.” Wei section 4.2.1 “Creation of Graph Representation from B-rep Models” discloses “Given a B-rep model, we need to create a graph representation for it first.”
Wei page 23 section 2.2.3 disclose “In a [Face Adjacency Graph (FAG)], nodes represent object faces, whereas edges and vertices are encoded into arcs and hyperarcs.”
Claim 15 further recites “wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a root node, one or more plane nodes, …, and wherein the root node corresponds to a reference planar face selected from the at least one planar face.” Wei page 39 discloses “This algorithm begins with choosing a root face f from the structure and adding it to the layout N.” Choosing a root face corresponds with selecting a reference planar face as a root node.
Claim 15 further recites “one or more cone nodes.” Wei does not explicitly disclose cone nodes; however, in analogous art of computer-aided modeling of bent sheet objects, Paavilainen column 2 lines 29-30 disclose “A bend may be a conical bend or a cylindrical bend.” Paavilainen column 8 lines 17-20 teach “The edges selected as a result of running the multi-objective optimization model used are such that a conical or a cylindrical bend object can be added between the selected edges.” Links corresponding with conical or cylindrical bends correspond with cone nodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wei and Paavilainen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use conical bends into the system of geometric design of flay layouts for the advantageous purpose such that “bend parameters are calculated in step 309 by using a multi-objective optimization” and computer creation of unbent objects. See Paavilainen column 8 lines 11-13. Wei section 4.3.3 discloses various “optimality criteria.”
Claim 15 further recites “and one or more deform nodes.” The claim language “deform nodes” is interpreted in light of Specification ¶60 and broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP §2111.01.
Wei page 45 fourth paragraph disclose “When the structure contains non-straight common edges, they must be seams. This is because non-straight lines cannot be used as fold lines.” Wei page 47 first paragraph disclose “Secondly, we tried to deal with structures containing complex features that may pose problems to the existing unfolding methods (e.g. the situation where more than two faces sharing one single edge).” Wei page 78 section 5.1.1 defines “Hyper-Common Edges.” Both seams and hyper-common edges correspond with deformation nodes.
Claim 15 further recites “processing the one or more plane nodes and subsequently the one or more cone nodes for generating a first partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more plane nodes and the one or more cone nodes; processing the one or more deform nodes for generating a second partial unfold layout corresponding to the one or more deform nodes.” Wei page 91 algorithm 5.1 discloses “Construct the corresponding [Face Adjacency Graph (FAG)] G” and “Construct all hyper-common edge sequences.” Constructing the layout for the face-adjacency graph and constructing the layout corresponds with processing all the nodes including the plane nodes, cone nodes, and deform nodes. See further Wei page 108 algorithm 6.3 “Subdividing FAG methodology.”
Wei page 97 section 6.1.2 disclose “The previous section discussed the possibility of decomposing a FAG into a set of sub-FAGs by using exclusive link sets.” Respective subdivided FAGs correspond with second partial unfold layouts.
Claim 15 further recites “and joining the first partial unfold layout with the second partial unfold layout for generating the unfold layout for the B-rep-based CAD sheetmetal model.” Wei page 108 algorithm 6.3 “Subdividing FAG methodology” discloses “Output Li” corresponding with outputting the layout. Outputting the layout corresponds with outputting a joined first and second partial layouts of respective subdivisions for generating the overall unfold layout for the B-rep CAD sheet metal model.
Dependent claims 16-20 are substantially similar to claims 2-6 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 and under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Wei, Liu “Geometric Design of Flat Layout of 3D Folded Structures” Thesis, Nanyang Tech. U. (2005) [herein “Wei”] page 78 section 5.1.1 defines “Hyper-Common Edges.” Wei page 79 first paragraph discloses “The hyper-common edge set of a specific hyper-common edge is the set of all faces adjacent to this hyper-common edge.” Wei page teach algorithm 6.3 and Wei page 91 teach algorithm 5.1 “Modified unfolding methodology.” Wei fails to teach determining closest points on an edge of an unfold path.
US patent 10,360,320 B2 Paavilainen, et al. [herein “Paavilainen”] column 12 lines 8-10 teach “The radius for the cylinder may be selected to be the biggest radius fitting inside the discontinuity boundaries.” Defining the radius of the cylinder corresponds with determining respective cylindrical faces. Paavilainen column 12 lines 27-33 teach:
If the object is geometrically unfoldable, the curved section and zero or more sheet extension sections are determined in step 314, The curved section is defined by the lateral boundaries and discontinuity boundaries, and sheet extension sections are placed to areas in which the edge of the flat sheet object does not overlap with the discontinuity boundary,
Defining the curved section corresponds with creating a copy of the curve segments. But Paavilainen fails to teach determining closest points on an edge of an unfold path.
US patent 5,969,973 A Bourne, et al. [herein “Bourne”]] teaches Intelligent system for generating and executing a sheet metal bending plan for manufacturing. Bourne abstract teaches computerized methods for selecting tooling for bending apparatus and determining tooling state layout. Bourne column 57 lines 43-46 teach “Simulation module 318 is provided so that the user can simulate bending and unfolding of various bends on the workpiece, thus to get a visual representation of such bends an the graphic interface to be utilized by the design system.” Bourne fails to teach determining closest points on an edge of an unfold path.
Patel, J. & Campbell, M. “Automated Synthesis of Sheet Metal Parts by Optimizing a Fabrication Based Graph Topology” 46th AIA A Structures Structural Dynamics & Materials Conf. (2005) [herein “Patel”] teaches genetic algorithms to optimize a plurality of objectives when designing a sheet metal part. Patel fails to teach determining closest points on an edge of an unfold path.
Qattawi, A., et al. “An investigation of graph traversal algorithms in folded sheet metal parts design” Int’l J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., vol. 69, pp. 2237-2246 (2013) [herein “Qattawi”] section 4 teaches traversing a face adjacency graph (FAG) to produce possible flat patterns. Qattawi section 5 teaches graph traversal algorithms. But Qattawi fails to teach determining closest points on an edge of an unfold path.
Tai, K., et al. “Unfolding and Flat Layout Design of Non-Manifold 3D Folded Structures” Computer-Aided Design & Applications, vol. 1, issue 1-4 (2004) [herein “Tai”] abstract teaches generating spanning trees of face adjacency graphs (FAGs) as potential unfolded flat layouts. Tai section 3.1 defines nodes and links. Tai sections 3.3 and 3.4 discuss problems caused by hyper-common edges. But Tai fails to teach determining closest points on an edge of an unfold path.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “determining the closest points on the one of the edges of the unfold path; determining a plurality of unfold points corresponding to the closest points based on a proportional relationship between the edges of the deform face and corresponding edges of the edges of adjacent parent faces of the deform face in the first partial unfold layout; calculating a plurality of transformed unfold points corresponding to the plurality of unfold points based on a translation direction computed for each of the plurality of unfold points” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 18 September 2026
Prosecution Insights