DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to application filed on 09/14/2023.
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2024, 05/05/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system.
Claim 10 is directed to a method.
Claim 11 is directed to a system.
Therefore, claims 1-11 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
An apparatus for designing a plant, the apparatus comprising:
at least one of processing circuitry [e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function] configured to:
receive from a user, an operation to arrange a first object having a start point and a second object having an end point in a virtual space [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
set a plurality of tentative routes connecting the start point and the end point along coordinate axes of the virtual space [mathematical concepts];
detect whether or not there is interference with an obstacle for each of the set tentative routes [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or [mathematical concepts]];
generate one or more alternative routes avoiding the obstacle along the coordinate axes of the virtual space by changing the tentative routes for which interference has been detected in detecting whether or not there is interference [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)]; and
select an optimum route with a lowest cost from tentative routes for which no interference has been detected and the one or more alternative routes [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “receive”, “processing circuitry”. The additional element of “receive” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). The additional element of “processing circuitry” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “receive” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “processing circuitry” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 8, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 9, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per Claims 10-11, claims 10-11 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 1, and as such are similar rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2016/0328493 A1 issued to Shimada et al.
Claim 1. Shimada et al discloses an apparatus for designing a plant, the apparatus comprising:
at least one of processing circuitry (See: Abstract, An information processing apparatus includes a storage unit and a processor. The storage unit is configured to store information on an obstacle within a three-dimensional space. The processor is configured to partition the three-dimensional space into an orthogonal grid. The processor is configured to perform a linear search of searching for a last portion of a route proceeding from a start point) configured to:
receive from a user, an operation to arrange a first object having a start point and a second object having an end point in a virtual space (See: [0004] The user generates a component model of a product (device to be designed) using the 3D CAD. The VPS generates a 3D model (hereinafter referred to as a harness model) of a harness on the generated component model and then displays the harness model on a display unit. The user may specify a start point, an end point, and a passing point of a connector serving as a harness on the 3D model displayed on the display unit to perform routing of a harness wiring. The VPS generates a harness model along the specified harness wiring route on the component model, and then displays the harness model on the display unit. The user views the display unit to check a positional relationship between the component model and the harness model, in other words, an interference state between the component and the harness, and the length and curvature radius of the harness. The user thus designs the wiring route of the harness using the VPS);
set a plurality of tentative routes connecting the start point and the end point along coordinate axes of the virtual space (See: [0054] The grid point information 36 is information on each grid point searched for by the computer 10, and is associated with a grid point identification (ID) identifying the grid point. The grid point information 36 includes positional information (coordinates) of each grid point, a parent grid point ID (hereinafter also simply referred to as “parent”), a cost value with which the basic route reaches each grid point, and a collision flag; [0065] The linear search unit 22 proceeds straight ahead from the start point (first grid point of the orthogonal grid illustrated as P1 in FIG. 3) or a grid point (second grid point of the orthogonal grid illustrated as P2, P4, P5, or P7 in FIG. 3) that is detected and set to be a direction change point where the route changes the direction thereof in the linear search, in one axis direction (of six directions) of the orthogonal grid, until a border of the orthogonal grid or an obstacle is detected. The linear search unit 22 thus performs the linear search to search the route);
detect whether or not there is interference with an obstacle for each of the set tentative routes; generate one or more alternative routes avoiding the obstacle along the coordinate axes of the virtual space by changing the tentative routes for which interference has been detected in detecting whether or not there is interference (See: [0080] In the route search method according to the embodiment, the linear search to travel consecutively in one direction is performed in six directions. When a border or an obstacle is detected, a direction change point is set. When the surface (curve or a slope) of the obstacle is not parallel with the grid, the linear search is performed in a direction perpendicular to the normal line to the surface of the obstacle until the distance from the surface of the obstacle increases by a predetermined distance. In this way, the obstacle is avoided; [0081] The route search method according to the embodiment reduces the amount of processing to search the route from the start point to the end point in comparison with the route search method in which neighboring grid points are checked one by one to search for the route. Since the route search is performed by selecting only a grid point that is present close to but reliably avoids the obstacle, the amount of processing for the route search from the start point to the end point is reduced even if the grid interval is small and the surface of the obstacle is not parallel with the grid; [0153] The information processing apparatus 10 having the route search function according to the embodiment partitions, in a 3D CAD, a space having an obstacle therein into an orthogonal grid to search the space for a route from a start point to an end point. The information processing apparatus 10 proceeds straight until the obstacle or the border is detected. The information processing apparatus 10 performs the linear search for detecting a route by detecting a grid point close to the obstacle or a grid point avoiding the obstacle, and thus searches for the route from the start point to the end point); and
select an optimum route with a lowest cost from tentative routes for which no interference has been detected and the one or more alternative routes (See: [0056] The cost value is defined such that the shorter the travel distance, the smaller the cost value. For example, the cost value is calculated on the basis of a distance D1 (passed grid count) of the basic route from the start point to each grid point, and an estimated distance D2 from each grid point to the end point (such as Manhattan distance). The cost value may be the distance D1 or the distance (D1+D2); [0059] The second check queue 38 is used in the route search performed by the point-by-point search unit 24 described later. Information (grid point ID, the parent, and the cost value) on a grid point serving as a search candidate to be checked by the point-by-point search unit 24 is input into and stored in the second check queue 38 (see FIG. 6 and FIG. 7). When the point-by-point search unit 24 performs the route search using the second check queue 38, the location of each grid point searched for by the point-by-point search unit 24, the parent of each grid point, and the cost value of a search route up to each grid point are stored as the grid point information 36 in the memory unit 30; [0090] Finally, the linear search proceeds from the grid point P7 (second grid point) in an upward direction as illustrated in FIG. 3, thereby detecting the end point P8. The search for a single basic route is thus complete. When multiple different basic routes are detected in a similar fashion, a basic route having a minimum cost value calculated therefore is selected. The cost value herein may be a distance (number of intermediate grid points) of each basic route extending from the start point to the end point).
Claim 2. Shimada et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry further configured to: modify each of the generated one or more alternative routes and generating a modified route with a smaller number of bends and a shorter path length than the one or more alternative route (See: [0104] If the travel distance is shorter than the minimum curvature radius of the harness to be wired (No in S24), the distance between the input grid point and the next direction change point is short. Therefore, it is considered to be difficult to change the wiring direction of the harness by bending the harness along the basic route detected by the linear search unit 22. The linear search unit 22 thus determines that wiring the harness along the basic route is difficult. Thus, the linear search unit 22 does not adopt the linear search in the selected one axis direction, and proceeds to S28 to determine whether all six axis directions have been selected; [0105] If some of the six axis directions are not yet selected (No in S28), the linear search unit 22 returns to S21. If all six axis directions are selected (Yes in S28), the linear search unit 22 returns to S15 in FIG. 4; [0106] If the travel distance is equal to or longer than the minimum curvature radius of the harness to be wired (Yes in S24), the distance between the input grid point and the next direction change point is long enough to bend and wire the harness. It is thus considered to be possible to bend the harness along the basic route detected by the linear search unit 22 and change the wiring direction of the harness. The linear search unit 22 thus determines that wiring the harness along the basic route is possible), and in selecting the optimum route, the optimum route with a lowest cost is selected from the tentative routes for which no interference has been detected, the one or more alternative routes, and the modified routes (See: [0090] Finally, the linear search proceeds from the grid point P7 (second grid point) in an upward direction as illustrated in FIG. 3, thereby detecting the end point P8. The search for a single basic route is thus complete. When multiple different basic routes are detected in a similar fashion, a basic route having a minimum cost value calculated therefor is selected. The cost value herein may be a distance (number of intermediate grid points) of each basic route extending from the start point to the end point).
Claim 3. Shimada et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a cost of each route when the optimum route is selected is calculated based on a path length of the route, and when the path length is the same, a route with a smaller number of bends is rated higher based on a number of bends (See: [0090] Finally, the linear search proceeds from the grid point P7 (second grid point) in an upward direction as illustrated in FIG. 3, thereby detecting the end point P8. The search for a single basic route is thus complete. When multiple different basic routes are detected in a similar fashion, a basic route having a minimum cost value calculated therefor is selected. The cost value herein may be a distance (number of intermediate grid points) of each basic route extending from the start point to the end point; [0104] If the travel distance is shorter than the minimum curvature radius of the harness to be wired (No in S24), the distance between the input grid point and the next direction change point is short. Therefore, it is considered to be difficult to change the wiring direction of the harness by bending the harness along the basic route detected by the linear search unit 22. The linear search unit 22 thus determines that wiring the harness along the basic route is difficult. Thus, the linear search unit 22 does not adopt the linear search in the selected one axis direction, and proceeds to S28 to determine whether all six axis directions have been selected; [0105] If some of the six axis directions are not yet selected (No in S28), the linear search unit 22 returns to S21. If all six axis directions are selected (Yes in S28), the linear search unit 22 returns to S15 in FIG. 4; [0106] If the travel distance is equal to or longer than the minimum curvature radius of the harness to be wired (Yes in S24), the distance between the input grid point and the next direction change point is long enough to bend and wire the harness. It is thus considered to be possible to bend the harness along the basic route detected by the linear search unit 22 and change the wiring direction of the harness. The linear search unit 22 thus determines that wiring the harness along the basic route is possible).
Claim 8. Shimada et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in generating the one or more alternative routes, an obstacle object which is an object to be avoided by the one or more alternative routes is identified by excluding, from a plurality of obstacles for which interference with the tentative route has been detected, obstacles whose distances to positions of the start point and the end point are within a preset threshold value, and the alternate routes that avoid the identified obstacle object are generated (See: [0068] The linear search unit 22 performs the linear search from the direction change point (see P3 or P6 in FIG. 3) in four directions perpendicular to a normal line direction to the surface of the obstacle at the location where the obstacle has been detected (see directions H1 or H2 in FIG. 3) until the minimum distance (see d in FIG. 3) between the surface of the obstacle and the route under search becomes a predetermined distance or longer. The four search directions include two directions that are perpendicular to each other on a plane defined by the normal line direction and the linear search direction extending to the detection of the direction change point (for example, a direction A3 and a direction opposite to the direction A3 or a direction A6 and a direction opposite to the direction A6). The four search directions also include two directions that are perpendicular to the plane defined by the normal line direction and the linear search direction extending to the detection of the direction change point (for example, two directions perpendicular to the page of FIG. 3); [0069] The linear search unit 22 sets, to be a next direction change point of the route under search in the grid point information 36 in the memory unit 30, a grid point (sixth grid point illustrated as P4 in FIG. 3) of the orthogonal grid having a minimum distance to the surface of the obstacle equal to or longer than the minimum curvature radius in a region close to a location where the minimum distance between the surface of the obstacle and the route under search is equal to or longer than the predetermined distance. The location of the next direction change point, the parent, the cost value, and the collision flag “0” are set to be the information of the next direction change point in the grid point information 36).
Claim 9. Shimada et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry further configured to receive from a user, an input of a piping design parameter which is a specification value including a size of piping to be used for the tentative route, wherein the threshold value refers to a distance which allows a minimum elbow usable for the tentative route to join, the distance being set by the piping design parameter (See: [0052] The harness information 34 is information on a harness to be wired on the component model 32. For example, the harness information 34 includes information concerning the length and the minimum curvature radius of the harness to be wired, and positional information of a start point (first grid point) and an end point (fourth grid point) of the harness to be wired, which are specified by the user. The minimum curvature radius of the harness to be wired is used as a minimum straight travel distance per single linear search to be described later).
As per Claims 10-11, claims 10-11 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 1, and as such are similar rejected.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2016/0328493 A1 issued to Shimada et al in view of US Patent No. 5, 740, 341 issued to Oota et al.
Claim 4. Shimada et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein with respect to the cost of each route when selecting the optimum route, when the path length and the number of bends are the same (See: [0056] The cost value is defined such that the shorter the travel distance, the smaller the cost value. For example, the cost value is calculated on the basis of a distance D1 (passed grid count) of the basic route from the start point to each grid point, and an estimated distance D2 from each grid point to the end point (such as Manhattan distance). The cost value may be the distance D1 or the distance (D1+D2); [0090] Finally, the linear search proceeds from the grid point P7 (second grid point) in an upward direction as illustrated in FIG. 3, thereby detecting the end point P8. The search for a single basic route is thus complete. When multiple different basic routes are detected in a similar fashion, a basic route having a minimum cost value calculated therefor is selected. The cost value herein may be a distance (number of intermediate grid points) of each basic route extending from the start point to the end point).
Shimada et al does not specify but Oota et al discloses a route with a smaller amount of change in height through the path of the each of the route is rated higher (See: Col. 14 lines 24-29, The designer can input a three-dimensional shape 903 just by inputting a sectional shape (two-dimensional) 902 and a desired height. By dividing the three-dimensional shape into elementary figures 801, they can be managed as elementary figures 801).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine design and production supporting system for component arrangement and pipe routing as taught by Oota et al to route search method of Shimada et al would be to distinguish the arranged spaces from he non-arranged spaces and arranging he components on the non-arranged space and search the shortest route of pipes (Oota et al, Abstract).
Claim 5. Shimada et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein in selecting the optimum route, routes satisfying a constraint condition of the change in height through the path are selected in advance, and the optimum route is selected from the selected routes (See: [0090] Finally, the linear search proceeds from the grid point P7 (second grid point) in an upward direction as illustrated in FIG. 3, thereby detecting the end point P8. The search for a single basic route is thus complete. When multiple different basic routes are detected in a similar fashion, a basic route having a minimum cost value calculated therefore is selected. The cost value herein may be a distance (number of intermediate grid points) of each basic route extending from the start point to the end point; [0104] If the travel distance is shorter than the minimum curvature radius of the harness to be wired (No in S24), the distance between the input grid point and the next direction change point is short. Therefore, it is considered to be difficult to change the wiring direction of the harness by bending the harness along the basic route detected by the linear search unit 22. The linear search unit 22 thus determines that wiring the harness along the basic route is difficult. Thus, the linear search unit 22 does not adopt the linear search in the selected one axis direction, and proceeds to S28 to determine whether all six axis directions have been selected).
Claim 6. Oota et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in generating the one or more alternative routes, an elbow is used to generate the one or more alternative routes (See: Col. 14 lines 19-24, Symbols to be used frequently such as valves 901a, tees 901b, crosses 901c, reducers 901d, and elbows 901e are registered as components 601 and parts 603 in advance. Furthermore, the component design support processing is designed so that building bodies may be input easily).
Claim 7. Shimada et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in generating the one or more alternative routes, when a new straight pipe is applied to the one or more alternative routes, the one or more alternative routes are generated so as to satisfy a minimum distance between welds at both ends of the straight pipe (See: [0056] The cost value is defined such that the shorter the travel distance, the smaller the cost value. For example, the cost value is calculated on the basis of a distance D1 (passed grid count) of the basic route from the start point to each grid point, and an estimated distance D2 from each grid point to the end point (such as Manhattan distance). The cost value may be the distance D1 or the distance (D1+D2); [0069] The linear search unit 22 sets, to be a next direction change point of the route under search in the grid point information 36 in the memory unit 30, a grid point (sixth grid point illustrated as P4 in FIG. 3) of the orthogonal grid having a minimum distance to the surface of the obstacle equal to or longer than the minimum curvature radius in a region close to a location where the minimum distance between the surface of the obstacle and the route under search is equal to or longer than the predetermined distance. The location of the next direction change point, the parent, the cost value, and the collision flag “0” are set to be the information of the next direction change point in the grid point information 36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drumheller et al (US Patent No. 7,647,211 B2) discloses An improved method for designing the route of a transport element, such as a tube, is provided. The method preferably designs the route automatically and, by utilizing constraint objects in the design of the route, as opposed to during a post design check, ensures that the resulting route complies with the various constraint objects. In addition, the method of the present invention may establish an overall cost function to evaluate a plurality of feasible routes of the transport element that each comply with the constraint objects such that a preferred or optimal route may be designed. Constraints may be based upon the routing of the transport element in relation to another transport element, an additional constraint, or a relaxed constraint (Abstract).
Narikawa et al (US Patent No. 5,119,317) discloses A routing system for finding a route which satisfies predetermined limiting conditions in a space of an object space with an aid of a computer, includes a first processor for dividing at least the object area into a plurality of areas and extracting a divided area or divided areas which satisfy the predetermined limiting conditions from the plurality of divided areas, and a second processor for further dividing the divided area or divided areas extracted by the first processor into a plurality of subdivided areas and extracting a subdivided area or subdivided areas which satisfy the predetermined limiting conditions from the plurality of subdivided areas (Abstract).
Anderson et al (US Patent No. 11, 426, 871 B1) discloses A system can be configured to generate and analyze one or more candidate logistics maps based on a set of input parameters and a baseline map of a logistics facility. The system can identify modifications strategies, resource limits, regions of interest, mapping constraints through analysis of the input parameters and the baseline map. The generated candidate maps and the baseline map can be implemented in virtual environments that are configured to replicate one or more operations associated with the baseline map, such as item distribution, item retrieval, and reorganization operations. The virtual environment can further simulate the resource limits associated with the baseline map and compare performance indicators from simulation of the baseline map to performance indicators from simulation of the candidate maps to identify viable improvements over existing logistics solutions (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights