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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on May 11, 2026. Claims 1, 10, 16, and 20 have been amended, claims 9 and 13 have been canceled, and claims 21-22 have been added.
Currently claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-22 are pending. Claims 1, 16 and 20 are independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on June 1, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Remarks.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10, 16, and 20 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-22 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 12, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that, as amended, claims 1, 16 and 20 are not directed to an abstract idea of managing workflows or organizing human activity, but to a specific improvement in a technological process for predictive shimming of joints using three-dimensional point-cloud measurements and a particular sequence of geometric computations.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. If the steps (including gap analysis) can be performed manual and mental by a human, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Reciting autonomously performing the abstract idea by a processor and various service pods are merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with the abstract idea. The courts have held that “Automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make an abstract idea patent eligible.” See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”).
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if the Examiner were to maintain that the claims recite some abstract concept, the additional limitations as amended integrate any such concept into a practical application and provide an inventive concept under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of “a processor executing a workflow engine comprising a plurality of containerized service pods including a conditioning pod, an alignment pod and a surfacing pod”, “a build system”, and the term “autonomously/automatically” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, the specification describes that “the computing system 400 can include one or more processors 404 and one or more memory devices… The one or more processors can include any suitable processing device, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, integrated circuit, logic device, or other suitable processing device” (see ¶ 71); “The workflow engine 100 can be a web-based platform (or web portal) used for making predictions related to assembly of an article of manufacture” (See ¶ 35); “the service pod 150 include a conditioning pod 160, an alignment pod 170, and a surfacing pod 180” (see ¶ 42) and “the one or more component build system 136 can be or including 3D printing system (or additive manufacturing systems), machining tools (lathes, drills, mills, grinders, etc.)” (see ¶ 66); and “the system includes one or more processor and one or more non-transitory memory devices storing a program embodying a workflow engine…causes the one or more processors to perform an operation, the operation comprising: receiving a predictive assembly request, receiving measurement data…”(see ¶ 19). Thus, These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, at best, may perform the steps of: receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (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); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
In the Remarks on pages 14-15, Applicant argues that Roger does not disclose or suggest the following: (1) a workflow engine including a plurality of containerized service pods, including at least a conditioning pod, an alignment pos, and a surfacing pod; (2) autonomously building, by the workflow engine, a workflow specific to an assembly of interest, wherein building the workflow includes determining which of multiple service pods to invoke and determining a customized sequence of execution of invoked pods based on engineering relationships; or (3) performing, by a surfacing pot, sequential surface-based predictive operations on three-dimensional point-cloud data and nominal engineering surfaces, including gap analysis computing deviations between measured surface points and nominal engineering surfaces, shape correction modifying the 3D point-cloud data based on the deviations, offset generating computing a unified offset, and component creation at least generating shim geometry.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jiang discloses a distributed system comprising a plurality of service modules (see pg. 2, ¶ 8-9; pg. 4, ¶ 2, ¶ 12); at least one service when executed according to the sequence of the assembly calling, if the current task comprises two or more service, executing the corresponding according to the service sequence of services, and if the current service comprises two components, according to the service component executing in sequence execution module and returning the current service returns the result (see pg. 4, ¶ 6-9). Jiang further discloses determining the services of a plurality of service execution sequence according to the execution sequence of the assembly; determining the order of invoking component scena A is invoking component elements A, B, C, D, E (see pg. 3, S101 to pg. 4, S103).
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art, Roger and in view of Jiang teaches the limitations in the form of Applicant claimed.
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 1-8, 10-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14-15 are directed to a method for predictive assembly of a joint, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 16-19 and 21-22 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory memory device, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having the computer-readable instructions embodying a work engine, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 1 recites limitations of “receiving a predictive assembly request, receiving measurement data associated with the assembly of interest, building a workflow specific to the assembly of interest for generating the assembly prediction, determining which service pods for generating the assembly prediction, determining a sequence of execution of the invoked service pods, generating the assembly prediction, receiving user input for adjusting surface characteristics, fitting the measurement data to nominal engineering requirements of the assembly of interest, performing sequential surface-based predictive operations on the three-dimensional point cloud data and nominal engineering surfaces, performing a gap analysis, outputting the assembly prediction, and fabricating the at least one component based on the geometry data”, the dependent claims 2-8, 10-12 and 14-15 further narrowing the limitations of claim 1 including determining which of the invoked service pods to execute in series and which to execute in parallel, determining a priority of the predictive assembly request relative to one or more other predictive assembly requests, shifting one or more computing resource for executing the workflow, spinning up additional computing resources, determining computing resources needed for executing the workflow, determining that there is an insufficient amount of computing resources for executing the workflow, receiving the assembly prediction output, building at least one component for the assembly of interest, monitoring a status of the invoked service pods during execution of the workflow, and reporting the status of the invoked service pods to a user initiating the predictive assembly request”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are methods that allow a user to manage workflow of assembly prediction using one or more tools including a processor executing the workflow engine and a build system to perform the steps, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping involves fundamental economic principles, commercial interactions, and managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of “a processor executing a workflow engine” and “a build system” do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, claims recite a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor executing a workflow engine comprising a plurality of containerized service pods including a conditioning pod, an alignment pod and a surfacing pod”, “a build system”, and the term “autonomously/automatically” for performing the steps. The specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, the specification describes that “the computing system 400 can include one or more processors 404 and one or more memory devices… The one or more processors can include any suitable processing device, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, integrated circuit, logic device, or other suitable processing device” (see ¶ 71); “The workflow engine 100 can be a web-based platform (or web portal) used for making predictions related to assembly of an article of manufacture” (See ¶ 35); “the service pod 150 include a conditioning pod 160, an alignment pod 170, and a surfacing pod 180” (see ¶ 42) and “the one or more component build system 136 can be or including 3D printing system (or additive manufacturing systems), machining tools (lathes, drills, mills, grinders, etc.)” (see ¶ 66); and “the system includes one or more processor and one or more non-transitory memory devices storing a program embodying a workflow engine…causes the one or more processors to perform an operation, the operation comprising: receiving a predictive assembly request, receiving measurement data…”(see ¶ 19). These additional elements, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Further, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor executing a workflow engine comprising a plurality of containerized service pods including a conditioning pod, an alignment pod and a surfacing pod”, “a build system for fabricating at least one component”, and the term “autonomously/automatically” for performing the steps. The specification describes that “the computing system 400 can include one or more processors 404 and one or more memory devices… The one or more processors can include any suitable processing device, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, integrated circuit, logic device, or other suitable processing device” (see ¶ 71); “The workflow engine 100 can be a web-based platform (or web portal) used for making predictions related to assembly of an article of manufacture” (See ¶ 35); “the service pod 150 include a conditioning pod 160, an alignment pod 170, and a surfacing pod 180” (see ¶ 42) and “the one or more component build system 136 can be or including 3D printing system (or additive manufacturing systems), machining tools (lathes, drills, mills, grinders, etc.)” (see ¶ 66); and “the system includes one or more processor and one or more non-transitory memory devices storing a program embodying a workflow engine… causes the one or more processors to perform an operation, the operation comprising: receiving a predictive assembly request, receiving measurement data…”(see ¶ 19). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. For example, the processor executing a workflow engine (e.g., website, web portal) is no more than a generic computer running a web browser; and using a build system (e.g., 3D printer) for fabricating the at least one component is directed to the use of insignificant post-solution activity because this “build system” is not integrated into the claim as a whole. Thus, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, at best, the processor may perform the steps of: receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (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); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14-15 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 16-22 parallel claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14-15—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger et al., (JP 2020123322, hereinafter: Roger), and in view of Jiang et al., (CN 106921688, hereinafter: Jiang), and further in view of Chen et al., (CN 102509197, hereinafter: Chen) and Nguyen (US 2024/0192658), and Lagally et al., (US 2015/0294032, hereinafter: Lagally).
(Non-US patent references are cited by page number on the document unless they don’t have page numbers, then cited by PDF page number)
Regarding claim 1, Roger discloses a method for predictive assembly of a joint, comprising:
receiving, by the processor executing the workflow engine, measurement data associated with the assembly of interest for which the assembly prediction is desired (see pg. 6, ¶ 2 to pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 16, ¶ 13; pg. 17, App. 18-19), wherein the measurement data comprises three-dimensional point cloud data representing surface geometries of the surfaces to be mated and is captured prior to mating (see pg. 2, last ¶ to pg. 3, ¶ 2; pg. 4, last ¶ to pg. 5, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 17, ¶ 5-6; pg. 21, ¶ 3);
autonomously building, by the processor executing the workflow engine, a workflow specific to the assembly of interest for generating the assembly prediction (see pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 7, ¶ 2-4; pg. 10, ¶ 3-5), wherein building the workflow comprises determining i) which of the service pods to invoke for generating the assembly prediction, and ii) a customized sequence of execution of invoked service pods, wherein the workflow engine autonomously determines the sequence of execution based on engineering relationships associated with the assembly of interest;
receiving, by the conditioning pod, user input for adjusting surface characteristics of one or more of the components of the assembly of interest and parsing the measurement data (see Title; pg. 8, ¶ 5; pg. 13, ¶ 3; pg. 16, ¶ 14; pg. 17, ¶ 5-6);
fitting, by the alignment pod, the measurement data to nominal engineering requirements of the assembly of interest (see pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 5, ¶ 3; pg. 6, ¶ 6 to pg. 7, 2; pg. 9, ¶ 3-6); and
performing, by the surfacing pod, sequential surface-based predictive operations on the three-dimensional point cloud data and nominal engineering surfaces (see pg. 5, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 2-4; pg. 16, ¶ 1-2, ¶ 11), wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations comprise gap analysis comprising computing, for points in the three-dimensional point cloud data, deviations between the points and nominal engineering surfaces of the components, shape correction, offset generation, and component creation for the components of the assembly of interest, and wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations provide high-definition surfacing of the assembly of interest and reduce manufacturing defects in the joint relative to conventional shimming based on measuring gaps after mating;
outputting, by the processor executing the workflow engine, the assembly prediction to a build system, wherein the assembly prediction comprises geometry data for manufacturing at least one component for the assembly of interest (see pg. 2, ¶ 6; pg. 5, ¶ 3; pg. 10, ¶ 3);
fabricating, by the build system, the at least one component based on the geometry data (see pg. 17, last ¶ to pg. 19, ¶ 1; pg. 21, ¶ 2-3).
Roger does not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jiang in an analogous art for managing task execution discloses:
receiving, by a processor executing a workflow engine comprising a plurality of containerized service pod, a predictive assembly request for an assembly prediction to be generated for an assembly of interest (see pg. 5, ¶ 7-8, ¶ 13-14), wherein the assembly of interest comprises components to be joined having surfaces to be mated;
wherein building the workflow comprises determining i) which of the service pods to invoke for generating the assembly prediction (see pg. 2, ¶ 2; pg. 4, ¶ 2, pg. 4, last ¶; pg. 7, ¶ 14-15), and ii) a customized sequence of execution of invoked service pods (see pg. 3, last 2nd ¶ to pg. 4, ¶ 2), wherein the workflow engine autonomously determines the sequence of execution based on engineering relationships associated with the assembly of interest (see pg. 6, ¶ 4-5; pg. 7, ¶ 12-15; pg. 9, ¶ 5);
autonomously generating, by the processor executing the workflow engine, the assembly prediction by executing the workflow using the invoked service pods and the measurement data (see pg. 4, ¶ 2, ¶ 12; pg. 5, ¶ 6-7), wherein the invoked service pods comprise a conditioning pod, an alignment pod, and a surfacing pod, and wherein autonomously generating comprises (see pg. 4, ¶ 8-9; pg. 6, ¶ 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roger to include the teaching of Jiang in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of improved the stability of task execution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Jiang discloses determining the services of a plurality of service execution sequence according to the execution sequence of the assembly, and determining the scheduling sequence of task 1 and task 2 invoke service A and service B (see pg. 4, ¶ 2 and ¶ 8 to pg. 5, ¶ 6).
Roger and Jiang do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Chen in an analogous art of workflow management discloses:
a workflow engine comprising a plurality of containerized service pod (see Abstract, ¶ 3-5, ¶ 33-34, ¶ 40-42, ¶ 64-65, ¶ 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang to include the features as taught by Chen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more specific name of the service, enabling better understanding. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Roger discloses Fig. 4 shows two components or parts aligned for assembly…the outer plate is arranged to be aligned with a second component such as a lower structure includes an upper bonding surface, and the inner surface of the outer plate is mated with the upper mating surface of the lower structure (see pg. 4, ¶ 8 to pg. 5, ¶ 1)
Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen in an analogous art designing and manufacturing engineering workpieces discloses:
wherein the assembly of interest comprises components to be joined having surfaces to be mated (see ¶ 63, ¶ 86, ¶ 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Roger, Jiang, Chen and Nguyen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Lagally in an analogous art for predictive shimming discloses:
wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations comprise gap analysis comprising computing, for points in the three-dimensional point cloud data, deviations between the points and nominal engineering surfaces of the components, shape correction, offset generation, and component creation for the components of the assembly of interest (see ¶ 5-7, ¶ 31, ¶ 57-59, ¶ 87-88, ¶ 111-112), and wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations provide high-definition surfacing of the assembly of interest and reduce manufacturing defects in the joint relative to conventional shimming based on measuring gaps after mating (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 31-32, ¶ 58, ¶ 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang, Chen and Nguyen to include the features as taught by Lagally in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the wherein clauses regarding the “sequential surface-based predictive operations” that merely describe the operational characteristics, which are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 2, Roger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the sequence of execution of the invoked service pods comprises determining, by the processor executing the workflow engine, which of the invoked service pods to execute in series and which to execute in parallel (see pg. 14, ¶ 4- 5).
Regarding claim 3, Roger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the measurement data is received as part of the predictive assembly request (see pg. 2, ¶ 6; pg. 6, ¶ 6; pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 8, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 4, Roger does not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jiang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein autonomously building, by the processor executing the workflow engine (see pg. 3, ¶ 16; pg. 4, ¶ 2, ¶ 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roger to include the teaching of Jiang in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of improved the stability of task execution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen discloses
the workflow specific to the assembly of interest for generating the assembly prediction comprises determining a priority of the predictive assembly request relative to one or more other predictive assembly requests received by the workflow engine (see ¶ 79, ¶ 107, ¶ 113-115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising:
shifting, by the processor executing the workflow engine, one or more computing resources for executing the workflow based at least in part on the priority (see ¶ 79, ¶ 104, ¶ 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen discloses the method of claim 5, wherein shifting the one or more computing resources for executing the workflow based at least in part on the priority comprises spinning up, by the processor executing the workflow engine, additional computing resources to execute the workflow (see ¶ 22, ¶ 79, ¶ 87-89, ¶ 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein autonomously building, by the processor executing the workflow engine, the workflow specific to the assembly of interest for generating the assembly prediction comprises determining, by executing the workflow engine, computing resources needed for executing the workflow (see ¶ 12-17, ¶ 98, ¶ 255). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen discloses the method of claim 7, wherein determining the computing resources needed for executing the workflow comprises determining, by the processor executing the workflow engine, that there is an insufficient amount of computing resources for executing the workflow, and wherein the method further comprises:
spinning up (increasing), by executing the workflow engine, additional computing resources so that there is a sufficient amount of computing resources for executing the workflow (see ¶ 22, ¶ 79, ¶ 87-89, ¶ 200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the build system, the assembly prediction output by the workflow engine (see ¶ 97, ¶ 98-99, ¶ 187); and
building, by the build system, the at least one component for the assembly of interest based at least in part on the assembly prediction output by the workflow engine (see ¶ 62, ¶ 102, ¶ 107), and
wherein the build system does the receiving and the building autonomously in response to receiving the assembly prediction (see ¶ 45, ¶ 60, ¶ 171).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the assembly prediction includes build data representing instructions for building the at least one component for the assembly of interest (see ¶ 46, ¶ 102, ¶ 107, ¶ 159). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Roger does not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jiang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the workflow engine is a web-based platform that, by executing the workflow engine, causes one or more processors to receive multiple predictive assembly requests at a time, autonomously build and execute workflows specific to assemblies of interest specified in respective ones of the multiple predictive assembly requests to generate respective assembly predictions, and to output the respective assembly predictions. (see pg. 5, ¶ 4-8, ¶ 13-14; pg. 6, ¶ 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roger to include the teaching of Jiang in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of improved the stability of task execution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Roger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the assembly prediction output by the workflow engine includes geometry data for a shim of a joint of an aircraft (see pg. 5, ¶ 3-5; pg. 9, ¶ 1-3; pg. 13, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 15, Roger does not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jiang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
reporting, by the processor executing the workflow engine, the status of the invoked service pods to a user initiating the predictive assembly request (see pg. 4, ¶ 2, ¶ 8-12; pg. 5, ¶ 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roger to include the teaching of Jiang in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of improved the stability of task execution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Roger and Jiang do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Chen discloses
monitoring, by the processor executing the workflow engine, a status of the invoked service pods during execution of the workflow (see ¶ 42, ¶ 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang to include the features as taught by Chen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more specific name of the service, enabling better understanding. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Roger discloses a system for predictive assembly of a joint, comprising:
one or more processors (see pg. 7, ¶ 4); and
one or more non-transitory memory devices storing a program embodying a workflow engine, which, when executed by any combination of the one or more processors (see pg. 13, ¶ 4), causes the one or more processors to perform an operation, the operation comprising:
receiving measurement data associated with the assembly of interest for which the assembly prediction is desired (see pg. 6, ¶ 2 to pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 16, ¶ 13; pg. 17, App. 18-19), wherein the measurement data comprises three-dimensional point cloud data representing surface geometries of the surfaces to be mated and is captured prior to mating (see pg. 2, last ¶ to pg. 3, ¶ 2; pg. 4, last ¶ to pg. 5, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 17, ¶ 5-6; pg. 21, ¶ 3);
autonomously building a workflow specific to the assembly of interest for generating the assembly prediction (see pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 7, ¶ 2-4; pg. 10, ¶ 3-5), and wherein building the workflow comprises determining i) which of the service pods to invoke for generating the assembly prediction, and ii) a customized sequence of execution of invoked service pods, wherein the workflow engine autonomously determines the sequence of execution based on engineering relationships associated with the assembly of interest;
wherein executing the workflow comprises invoking a conditioning pod of the service pods to adjust surface characteristics of one or more of the components of the assembly of interest and parse the measurement data (see Title; pg. 8, ¶ 5; pg. 13, ¶ 3; pg. 16, ¶ 14; pg. 17, ¶ 5-6), invoking an alignment pod of the service pods to fit the measurement data to nominal engineering requirements of the assembly of interest (see pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 5, ¶ 3; pg. 6, ¶ 6 to pg. 7, 2; pg. 9, ¶ 3-6), and invoking a surfacing pod of the service pods to perform sequential surface-based predictive operations comprising gap analysis, shape correction, offset generation, and component creation for the components of the assembly of interest (see pg. 5, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 2-4; pg. 16, ¶ 1-2, ¶ 11); and
automatically outputting the assembly prediction to a build system, wherein the assembly prediction comprises geometry data for manufacturing at least one component for the assembly of interest (see pg. 2, ¶ 6; pg. 5, ¶ 3; pg. 10, ¶ 3).
Roger does not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jiang discloses:
receiving a predictive assembly request for an assembly prediction to be generated for an assembly of interest (see pg. 5, ¶ 7-8, ¶ 13-14), wherein the workflow engine comprises a plurality of containerized service pods (see pg. 3, last 2nd ¶ to pg. 4, ¶ 2), wherein the assembly of interest comprises components to be joined having surfaces to be mated;
wherein building the workflow comprises determining i) which of the service pods to invoke for generating the assembly prediction (see pg. 2, ¶ 2; pg. 4, ¶ 2, pg. 4, last ¶; pg. 7, ¶ 14-15), and ii) a customized sequence of execution of invoked service pods (see pg. 3, last 2nd ¶ to pg. 4, ¶ 2), wherein the workflow engine autonomously determines the sequence of execution based on engineering relationships associated with the assembly of interest (see pg. 6, ¶ 4-5; pg. 7, ¶ 12-15; pg. 9, ¶ 5);
autonomously generating the assembly prediction by executing the workflow using the invoked service pods and the measurement data (see pg. 4, ¶ 2, ¶ 12; pg. 5, ¶ 6-7)
on the three-dimensional point cloud data and nominal engineering surfaces (see pg. 5, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 2-4; pg. 16, ¶ 1-2, ¶ 11), wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations comprise gap analysis comprising computing, for points in the three-dimensional point cloud data, deviations between the points and nominal engineering surfaces of the components, shape correction, offset generation, and component creation for the components of the assembly of interest, and wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations provide high-definition surfacing of the assembly of interest and reduce manufacturing defects in the joint relative to conventional shimming based on measuring gaps after mating;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roger to include the teaching of Jiang in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of improved the stability of task execution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Jiang discloses determining the services of a plurality of service execution sequence according to the execution sequence of the assembly, and determining the scheduling sequence of task 1 and task 2 invoke service A and service B (see pg. 4, ¶ 2 and ¶ 8 to pg. 5, ¶ 6).
Roger and Jiang do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Chen discloses:
a workflow engine comprising a plurality of containerized service pod (see Abstract, ¶ 3-5, ¶ 33-34, ¶ 40-42, ¶ 64-65, ¶ 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang to include the features as taught by Chen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more specific name of the service, enabling better understanding. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Roger discloses Fig. 4 shows two components or parts aligned for assembly…the outer plate is arranged to be aligned with a second component such as a lower structure includes an upper bonding surface, and the inner surface of the outer plate is mated with the upper mating surface of the lower structure (see pg. 4, ¶ 8 to pg. 5, ¶ 1)
Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen in an analogous art designing and manufacturing engineering workpieces discloses:
wherein the assembly of interest comprises components to be joined having surfaces to be mated (see ¶ 63, ¶ 86, ¶ 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Roger, Jiang, Chen and Nguyen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Lagally in an analogous art for predictive shimming discloses:
wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations comprise gap analysis comprising computing, for points in the three-dimensional point cloud data, deviations between the points and nominal engineering surfaces of the components, shape correction, offset generation, and component creation for the components of the assembly of interest (see ¶ 5-7, ¶ 31, ¶ 57-59, ¶ 87-88, ¶ 111-112), and wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations provide high-definition surfacing of the assembly of interest and reduce manufacturing defects in the joint relative to conventional shimming based on measuring gaps after mating (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 31-32, ¶ 58, ¶ 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang, Chen and Nguyen to include the features as taught by Lagally in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the wherein clauses regarding the “sequential surface-based predictive operations” that merely describe the operational characteristics, which are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 17, Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen discloses the system of claim 16, wherein autonomously building, by the workflow engine, the workflow specific to the assembly of interest for generating the assembly prediction comprises determining computing resources needed for executing the workflow, and wherein the operation further comprises:
spinning up, in response to determining that there is an insufficient amount of computing resources for executing the workflow, additional computing resources so that there is a sufficient amount of computing resources for executing the workflow (see ¶ 22, ¶ 79, ¶ 87-89, ¶ 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 18, Roger discloses the system of claim 16, wherein determining the sequence of execution of the invoked service pods comprises determining which of the invoked service pods to execute in series and which to execute in parallel (see pg. 14, ¶ 4-5).
Regarding claim 19, Roger discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the assembly prediction output by the workflow engine includes geometry data for a shim of a joint of an aircraft (see pg. 5, ¶ 3-5; pg. 9, ¶ 2-3; pg. 13, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 20, Roger discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable instructions embodying a workflow engine (see pg. 13, ¶ 4), the workflow engine being executable by one or more processors (see pg. 7, ¶ 4) to:
receive measurement data associated with the assembly of interest for which the assembly prediction is desired (see pg. 6, ¶ 2 to pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 16, ¶ 13; pg. 17, App. 18-19), wherein the measurement data comprises three-dimensional point cloud data representing surface geometries of the surfaces to be mated and is captured prior to mating (see pg. 2, last ¶ to pg. 3, ¶ 2; pg. 4, last ¶ to pg. 5, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 6; pg. 17, ¶ 5-6; pg. 21, ¶ 3);
autonomously building a workflow specific to the assembly of interest for generating the assembly prediction (see pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 7, ¶ 2-4; pg. 10, ¶ 3-5), and wherein building the workflow comprises determining i) which of the service pods to invoke for generating the assembly prediction, and ii) a customized sequence of execution of invoked service pods, wherein the workflow engine autonomously determines the sequence of execution based on engineering relationships associated with the assembly of interest;
wherein executing the workflow comprises invoking a conditioning pod of the service pods to adjust surface characteristics of one or more of the components of the assembly of interest and parse the measurement data (see Title; pg. 8, ¶ 5; pg. 13, ¶ 3; pg. 16, ¶ 14; pg. 17, ¶ 5-6), invoking an alignment pod of the service pods to fit the measurement data to nominal engineering requirements of the assembly of interest (see pg. 3, ¶ 3; pg. 5, ¶ 3; pg. 6, ¶ 6 to pg. 7, 2; pg. 9, ¶ 3-6), and invoking a surfacing pod of the service pods to perform sequential surface-based predictive operations comprising gap analysis, shape correction, offset generation, and component creation for the components of the assembly of interest (see pg. 5, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 2-4; pg. 16, ¶ 1-2, ¶ 11); and
automatically outputting the assembly prediction to a build system, wherein the assembly prediction comprises geometry data for manufacturing at least one component for the assembly of interest (see pg. 2, ¶ 6; pg. 5, ¶ 3; pg. 10, ¶ 3).
Roger does not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jiang discloses:
receiving a predictive assembly request for an assembly prediction to be generated for an assembly of interest (see pg. 5, ¶ 7-8, ¶ 13-14), wherein the workflow engine comprises a plurality of containerized service pods (see pg. 3, last 2nd ¶ to pg. 4, ¶ 2), wherein the assembly of interest comprises components to be joined having surfaces to be mated;
wherein building the workflow comprises determining i) which of the service pods to invoke for generating the assembly prediction (see pg. 2, ¶ 2; pg. 4, ¶ 2, pg. 4, last ¶; pg. 7, ¶ 14-15), and ii) a customized sequence of execution of invoked service pods (see pg. 3, last 2nd ¶ to pg. 4, ¶ 2), wherein the workflow engine autonomously determines the sequence of execution based on engineering relationships associated with the assembly of interest (see pg. 6, ¶ 4-5; pg. 7, ¶ 12-15; pg. 9, ¶ 5);
autonomously generating the assembly prediction by executing the workflow using the invoked service pods and the measurement data (see pg. 4, ¶ 2, ¶ 12; pg. 5, ¶ 6-7)
sequential surface-based predictive operations on the three-dimensional point cloud data and nominal engineering surfaces (see pg. 5, ¶ 5; pg. 7, ¶ 2-4; pg. 16, ¶ 1-2, ¶ 11), wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations comprise gap analysis comprising computing, for points in the three-dimensional point cloud data, deviations between the points and nominal engineering surfaces of the components, shape correction, offset generation, and component creation for the components of the assembly of interest, and wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations provide high-definition surfacing of the assembly of interest and reduce manufacturing defects in the joint relative to conventional shimming based on measuring gaps after mating;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roger to include the teaching of Jiang in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of improved the stability of task execution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Jiang discloses determining the services of a plurality of service execution sequence according to the execution sequence of the assembly, and determining the scheduling sequence of task 1 and task 2 invoke service A and service B (see pg. 4, ¶ 2 and ¶ 8 to pg. 5, ¶ 6).
Roger and Jiang do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Chen discloses:
a workflow engine comprising a plurality of containerized service pod (see Abstract, ¶ 3-5, ¶ 33-34, ¶ 40-42, ¶ 64-65, ¶ 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang to include the features as taught by Chen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more specific name of the service, enabling better understanding. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Roger discloses Fig. 4 shows two components or parts aligned for assembly…the outer plate is arranged to be aligned with a second component such as a lower structure includes an upper bonding surface, and the inner surface of the outer plate is mated with the upper mating surface of the lower structure (see pg. 4, ¶ 8 to pg. 5, ¶ 1)
Roger, Jiang and Chen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Nguyen in an analogous art designing and manufacturing engineering workpieces discloses:
wherein the assembly of interest comprises components to be joined having surfaces to be mated (see ¶ 63, ¶ 86, ¶ 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang and Chen to include the features as taught by Nguyen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for improving the accuracy of assembly design. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Roger, Jiang, Chen and Nguyen do not explicitly discloses an assembly or interest; however, Lagally in an analogous art for predictive shimming discloses:
wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations comprise gap analysis comprising computing, for points in the three-dimensional point cloud data, deviations between the points and nominal engineering surfaces of the components, shape correction, offset generation, and component creation for the components of the assembly of interest (see ¶ 5-7, ¶ 31, ¶ 57-59, ¶ 87-88, ¶ 111-112), and wherein the sequential surface-based predictive operations provide high-definition surfacing of the assembly of interest and reduce manufacturing defects in the joint relative to conventional shimming based on measuring gaps after mating (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 31-32, ¶ 58, ¶ 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang, Chen and Nguyen to include the features as taught by Lagally in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the wherein clauses regarding the “sequential surface-based predictive operations” that merely describe the operational characteristics, which are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 21, Roger and Jiang do not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jiang discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the operation further comprising monitoring a status of the invoked service pods during execution of the workflow (see ¶ 42, ¶ 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the services of Roger and in view of Jiang to include the features as taught by Chen in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more specific name of the service, enabling better understanding. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22, Roger does not explicitly discloses the following limitations; however, Jiang discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the operation further comprises reporting the status of the invoked service pods to a user initiating the predictive assembly request (see pg. 4, ¶ 2, ¶ 8-12; pg. 5, ¶ 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roger to include the teaching of Jiang in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of improved the stability of task execution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vasa et al., (US 2019/0329496) discloses a method for manufacturing sims between assembled parts in aircraft assembly.
Kurtz et al., (US 2020/0070340) discloses method for robot management for determining whether to select an assembly task of interest to process a workflow director may determine to perform another assembly task including coupling a second one of the collars to a second one of the bolts at a second assembly location.
Arthur et al., (US 10317886 B1) discloses a method for manufacturing shim to fill the corresponding gap between the assembled parts.
Glatfelter et al., (US 2018/0018764) discloses a method for providing improved virtual inspection of aircraft build processes by remotely accessing video data acquired during the assembly with a recording device.
Marinkovich et al., (US 2013/0120318) discloses a method for robot fleet management includes processing system configured to train a machine learning model to recognize an object relating to the robotic fleet using training data generated from the optical data captured by the optical assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights