DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 10/07/2025.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 10/07/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With regard to claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion of should be included.
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 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 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper et al. (USPGP 2025/0111014 A1) hereinafter ROPER, and further in view of Zhang et al. (USPGP 2009/0299896 A1), hereinafter ZHANG.
Claims 1, 8, 15:
ROPER as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method of assessing compliance of products defined by virtual product designs, the computer-implemented comprising: (see at least paragraphs 0003, 0006, 0013, 0107)
accessing, by a computer processor, a simulation model associated with
a physical product (see at least paragraphs 0003, 0006, 0013, 0107)
a certification; (see at least paragraphs 0003, 0006, 0013, 0107)
physically testing, using a physical test, a set of initial physical products respectively having a set of initial physical design configurations, the physically testing resulting in a set of physical test data; (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0073)
virtually testing, using a virtual test, a set of initial virtual products respectively having a set of initial virtual design configurations, the virtually testing resulting in a set of virtual test data; (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0073)
verifying, by the computer processor, the simulation model using the set of virtual test data; (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0073)
validating, by the computer processor, the simulation model using the set of physical test data, (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0073)
wherein the simulation model that was verified and validated has a validation space; (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0073)
determining whether a subsequent product complies with the certification, including: (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0016, 0073)
based on comparing the set of characteristics to the another set of characteristics, calculating a correlation factor associated with the subsequent product, (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0016, 0050, 0073, 0092)
determining, based on the correlation factor using the simulation model that was verified and validated, whether the subsequent product would comply with the certification. (see at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0016, 0050, 0073, 0092)
ROPER does not specifically disclose:
comparing a set of characteristics of the subsequent virtual design configuration product to another design configuration associated with set of characteristics of another product, wherein (i) the set of characteristics of the subsequent product extend beyond the validation space of the simulation model, and (ii) the another set of characteristics of the another product conform with the validation space of the simulation model,
ZHANG, however, in at least paragraphs 0008 and 0078 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of ROPER with the scoring and threshold steps of ZHANG because, “Digital engineering tools, including modeling and simulation tools that accurately virtualize physical systems or processes for real-world decisions, enable agile development of components and/or systems. Certification of these components and/or systems still largely occurs in the physical world using physical manifestations of digitally engineered components and/or systems.” (ROPER: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 9, 16:
The combination of ROPER/ZHANG discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROPER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the set of characteristics of the subsequent product conforms to an initial virtual design configuration of the set of initial virtual design configurations.
See at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0016, 0050, 0073, and 0092.
Claims 3, 10, 17:
The combination of ROPER/ZHANG discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROPER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the set of characteristics of the subsequent product conforms to an initial physical design configuration of the set of initial physical design configurations.
See at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0016, 0050, 0073, and 0092.
Claims 4, 11, 18:
The combination of ROPER/ZHANG discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROPER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein set of characteristics and the another set of characteristics comprises at least one of: a design, a power loss mapping, a cooling path, an environment, a physical load mapping, a current mapping, an electrical/magnetic field mapping, a fire load mapping, a load path, a heat/fire path, a smoke/flow path, or a magnetic/electrical path. See at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0016, 0050, 0073, and 0092.
Claims 7, 14:
The combination of ROPER/ZHANG discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROPER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein determining, based on the correlation factor using the simulation model that was verified and validated, whether the subsequent product would comply with the certification comprises:
determining, based on the correlation factor using the simulation model that was verified and validated, that the subsequent product would not comply with the certification;
determining, by the computer processor, a factor of the subsequent virtual design configuration that is non-compliant.
See at least paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0016, 0050, 0073, and 0092.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG and further in view of Applicant’s own admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20 :
The combination of ROPER/ZHANG discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ROPER/ZHANG do not specifically disclose:
wherein each of the set of characteristics and the another set of characteristics comprises the power loss mapping, and wherein comparing the set of characteristics to the another set of characteristics comprises:
comparing a first power loss mapping associated with the subsequent product to a second power loss mapping associated with the another product to quantify the power loss and heat that needs to be dissipated.
wherein each of set of characteristics and the another set of characteristics comprises the cooling path, and wherein comparing the set of characteristics to the another set of characteristics comprises:
comparing a first critical heat path associated with the subsequent product to a second critical heat path associated with the another product.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the technological arts to evaluate heating and cooling factors with regard to energy consumption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of ROPER with the technique of comparing and evaluating heating and cooling functions because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
NASA. “5.3 Product Verification.” (Sep 29, 2023). Retrieved online 07/03/2025. https://www.nasa.gov/reference/5-3-product-verification/
NAFEMS. “Verification & Validation in Engineering Simulation.” (Aug 21, 2019). Retrieved online 07/03/2025. https://www.nafems.org/training/courses/verification-validation-in-engineering-simulation/?srsltid=AfmBOorFBzOsS7i_Nragor9tfjU8dwUqvcXtW1z1s1GwdmsiE_Sv23o9
NASA. “5.4 Product Validation.” (Jul 26, 2023). Retrieved online 07/03/2025. https://www.nasa.gov/reference/5-4-product-validation/
Foreign Art:
ABUNOJAIM et al. “Computer-based Method For Digital Engineering And Certification Of Digitally Engineered Products, Involves Auditing Data Related To Transaction Request And Data Representative Of Result Of Operations Performed Using Digital Models By Digital Platform.” (WO 2024/187151 A1)
ARNEAULT et al. “Method For Creating Digital Representation Of E.g. Chemical Properties, Of Commodity, Involves Receiving Messages From Quantity Of Approving Devices By Computing Device, Where Messages Comprise Indication Of Verifier.” (WO 20222/25840 A1)
ARNAUD et al. “Product Edition And Simulation System For Product Lifecycle Management Database System, Displays User Interactive Graphic Tool To Trigger Simulation Of Modeled Object According To A Feature Other Than Feature Of Molded Object In Subset.” (EP 1672549 A1)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/07/2025 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights