Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action to Application Serial Number 18/404,206, filed on January 4, 2024. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action of July 9, 2025, Applicant, on January 8, 2026, amended claims 1 and 11. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Priority
The Examiner has noted this Application is a Continuation of Application 17/878,021 filed July 31, 2022 which claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/073,481 filed October 31, 2014.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, the amendment has been considered and is insufficient to overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed January 8, 2025.
On page 10-11 of the Remarks regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant states the amended claim recites additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by providing an improvement in technology to the field of matching a computer-aided design (CAD) model with suppliers. The technological improvement allows for dynamic adaptation to changes in user inputted preferences data to dynamically update CAD models and suppliers. Applicant's claimed embodiments, desirably provide details on how computing-assisted approach provides a specific solution to a specific technical problem by addressing challenges in dynamically updating and subsequently delivering CAD model matches to suppliers as a function of one or more user inputted requests.. In response, regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, The present claims amount to no more than utilizing computer components as tools to perform supplier analysis. Examiner finds the present claims improve an existing business process of requirements matching and there are currently no functional advancement to any technology or technological field, in order for the claim elements to be considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Utilizing computer structure and technology to collect, analyze and notify users of data change events are all, both individually and in combination, generic computer functions such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
On Pg. 12-13, regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant argues that do not recite any abstract idea, such as organizing human activities or mental processes, much like Example 42 - providing a specific improvement (standardized format, timely alerts) over generic data processing. Similarly, these limitations also convert standardized formats providing a specific improvement over generic data processing using the at least the pricing module for optimal results.. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in Example 42 demonstrates a specific
improvement over prior art systems as a whole by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. In contrast, the present claims contain the steps of the supplier CAD model /data analysis (the abstract ideal). . Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, regardless of the complexity and/or granularity of the type of data, computational data analysis without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea).
On Pg. 13-14, regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant argues that amended claims contains multiple additional elements that do not recite the allegedly abstract idea. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. When performing the § 101 analysis, Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation, both individually and in combination as according to the PTO's guidelines for § 101 eligibility. Please review updated 101 analysis below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One -Claims 1-10 are directed to a system for matching a computer-aided design (CAD) model with a supplier and claims 11-20 are directed to a method for matching a computer-aided design (CAD) model with a supplier which are a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One – Claim 1 recites a system for matching a computer-aided design (CAD) model with a supplier and Claim 11 recites a method for matching a computer-aided design (CAD) model with a supplier, which include, receiving a computer-aided design (CAD) file from a user, wherein the CAD file is representative of a structure to be fabricated; receiving a plurality of user inputted preferences for manufacture of the structure to be fabricated, wherein the plurality of user inputted preferences includes at least a lead time and at least a quantity to be manufactured; receiving an attribute data associated with a plurality of suppliers; determining a plurality of manufacturing requirements associated with the CAD model, wherein determining the plurality of manufacturing requirements includes: to parse a software model of the structure to be manufactured, wherein parsing the software model comprises: identifying a discrete shape from the software model as a function of computer assisted design (CAD) commands associated with the software model; wherein identifying the discrete shape comprises calculating, from a plurality of points on the software model, a position of a point of the plurality of points in a three- dimensional space; determining a manufacturing requirement for a product to be manufactured as a function of the identified shape, wherein the manufacturing requirement comprises CAD data and user data, the manufacturing requirement further comprising a number of manufacturing process steps; and determining a second manufacturing requirement from the plurality of user-inputted preferences, wherein the second manufacturing requirement includes a pricing requirement derived from at least the software model of the structure to be manufactured, wherein the pricing requirement comprises: reformatting design data extracted from the software model, wherein the design data includes the identified discrete shape determined by the parsing of the software model; and determining the pricing requirement as a function of at least the reformatted design data comparing, at the computing device, the attribute data to a first manufacturing requirement associated with the CAD model and a pricing requirement associated with the CAD model as derived by analysis of the reformatted design data; determining a best supplier of the plurality of suppliers as a function of the comparison of the attribute data to the first manufacturing requirement and the comparison of the attribute data to the pricing requirement; and transmitting, to a selected supplier, information related to the selected supplier according to the user inputted preferences.. As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “Methods of Organizing Human Activity”- sales and marketing activity; and Mental Processes-evaluation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The recitation of “system”, “computing device”, “graphical user interface”, “interrogator”, “pricing module”; “evaluation module”; and “computer system” nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from being “Methods of Organizing Human Activity”- marketing and sales activity and Mental Processes-evaluation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims primarily recite the additional element of using computer components to perform each step. The “system”, “computing device”, “graphical user interface”, “interrogator”, “pricing module”; “evaluation module”; and “computer system” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. There are no the additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field in matching a suppler analysis.
Step 2B - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “system”, “computing device”, “graphical user interface”, “interrogator”, “pricing module”; “evaluation module”; and “computer system” is insufficient to amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With regards to receiving data and step 2B, it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306.
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function(s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent Claims 2- 10 and 12-20 recite the additional limitations of receiving a first user input identifying at least a first user-inputted preference as required; and receive a second user input identifying at least a second user-inputted preference as not required; the CAD file comprises a three-dimensional (3D) CAD model; performing a geometric analysis of the CAD file and inputting a user preference as a function of the geometric analysis; the attribute data comprises one or more capabilities of the at least a supplier; the attribute data comprises pricing of the at least a supplier; the attribute data comprises the constraints of the at least a supplier; performing a geometric analysis of the CAD file; and determine a manufacturing process for fabricating the structure as a function of the geometric analysis; determining the best match as a function of an analysis of geometry of the structure to be fabricated; parsing the software model further comprises identifying at least a shape from the software model as a function of computer assisted design (CAD) commands associated with the software model; and further narrowing the abstract idea. These recited limitations in the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exceptions in Claims 1 and 11. Dependent Claim 2, 4, 8-9 and 12,14,18-19 recite the additional limitations of “computing device” and “GUI” which is MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. and i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321.
Reasons Claims are Patentably Distinguishable from the Prior Art
Examiner analyzed Claims 1-20 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
In regards to Claim 1 (similarly Claim 11), the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest:
“… determining a second manufacturing requirement from the plurality of user-inputted preferences, wherein the second manufacturing requirement includes a pricing requirement;
• compare the attribute data to the first manufacturing requirement associated with the CAD model and the pricing requirement associated with the CAD model;
• determine a best supplier of the plurality of suppliers as a function of the comparison of the attribute data to the first manufacturing requirement and the comparison of the attribute data to the pricing requirement;
• and populate at least a portion of the GUI with information related to the selected supplier according to the user inputted preferences.
transmit, to a selected supplier, information related to the selected supplier according to the user inputted preferences.”
Examiner finds that Herman et al. (US Publication No. 20150127131A1) teaches implements design-for-manufacturability (DFM) checks in real-time as a virtual model of a real part (to be manufactured) is constructed within a computer-aided drafting (CAD) program (see par. 0011-0012). In particular, Herman discloses applies a manufacturing file—specifying manufacturing and/or material sourcing capabilities, etc. of a manufacturing facility—to virtual features added to the virtual model to identify manufacturability-related issues for a real part to be manufactured according to the geometry of the virtual model substantially in real-time as virtual features are added to the part file containing the virtual model (see par. 0014-0015) and prompting to the user to adjust the virtual feature to reduce material stock cost, to reduce material waste, and/or to reduce machining time and therefore machining cost for the real part (see par. 0022, 0038.
Free (US Publication No. 20110047140A1) teaches matching computer-aided design (CAD) models of individual components or complete assemblies with real-world transactional data for the purpose of automating the process of determining market-related information such as pricing, optimal manufacturers, optimal manufacturing processes or cost comparison of product features and attributes (see par. 0001). In particular, Free discloses Once matching or similar geometric CAD models in the database are uncovered by a geometry based search engine after an index based search, the system may retrieve additional information associated with the similar CAD models, including but not limited to transactional data (such as cost or supplier) and process data. The system can then display the matching or similar CAD models adjacent to their associated transactional information and technical attribute data (such as manufacturing process, material and tolerance) on a viewing device for display and review by the computer user. The computer user can then refine or filter these search results further by supplying additional transactional data, process data, and/or technical attribute data associated with the computer user's digital CAD model (see par. 0019-0020, 0023).
Sohmshetty et al. (US Publication No. 20110172794A1) teaches determining a selection of technologies or processes for use in producing manufactured (see par. 0007). In particular, Sohmshetty discloses receiving one or more optimization metrics for each generic CAD model and data from at least three data sources including a sourcing data source, a manufacturing data source, and a design data source. The one or more optimization metrics may include one or more cost metrics or one or more performance metrics. The one or more performance metrics may be one or more of a part stiffness, strength, or crush capacity. In one embodiment, performing the algorithm may include receiving one or more constraints for each of the one.. or more generic CAD models. The one or more constraints may include one or more dimensions for the manufactured parts or a cost for the technology or process (see par. 0009-0011).
Although Herman, Free and Sohmshetty teach the CAD analysis elements of the claim, none of the cited prior art, singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest, the combination of, the CAD modelling with supplier selection.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 because they depend on claim 1 and claim 11 that is determined to be eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Patent Publication No. 20060253214 A1 to Gross- “A design system is accessible to a designer and a plurality of manufacturers. The design system comprises a first user interface configured to receive design information for a component from the designer. The design system further comprises a second user interface configured to receive manufacturing information from the plurality of manufacturers. The manufacturing information comprises at least process cost information. The design system further comprises a database comprising the manufacturing information associated with each of the plurality of manufacturers. The design system further comprises a cost estimation module.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chesiree Walton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5219. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson, can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/CHESIREE A WALTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights