DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 04/29/2026. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Mankin (US 2006/0095882 A1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnia (US 2020/0125689 A1) in view of Mankin (US 2006/0095882 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Karnia discloses a method comprising:
[claim 8: A system comprising: a memory device configured to store machine-readable instructions; and a computing system including one or more processing devices, in response to executing the machine-readable instructions, configured to: (figure 2)]
[claim 14: An apparatus including a memory device storing instructions configured to cause one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising: (figure 2)]
parsing, by a computing system, a schematic to identify text and enclosures representing circuit devices of the electronic system; (paragraphs 21, 24 and 29; figure 8, 806 and 826: An object may include a representation of a wire, line, data bus, pin connecting a wire to another object, microchip, switch, hardware, etc. Character recognition can include parsing raster vector files, or other files, interpreting grouped geometry into meaningful symbols, recognizing the symbols, and generating structures that map the groupings of symbols to known alpha-numeric characters or other objects. The object recognition engine may parse the SVG image data in the schematics input files and identify objects that are represented in the electronics schematic.)
classifying, by the computing system, the text based on a proximity of the text to the enclosures in the schematic diagram; (paragraph 44: Processor determines that there is an association between text data and line or other objects because the string data is disposed parallel to and proximate to the object geometry.)
matching, by the computing system, the text to the enclosures in the schematic diagram based, at least in part, on the classifications of the text, which correlates the circuit devices represented by the enclosures to the text matched to the enclosures; (paragraph 45: The processor may form an association (a positive match) between the circuit block object 806, the line object 810 connected to the circuit block object 806, and the alpha-numeric string data 828 that reads RESISTOR 750 OHM TO ECM. The positive match may provide an adequate (that is, within a predetermined range of acceptable probability) indicia of association of the objects, where the indicia of association of the objects is indicative that the objects 806, 826, 828, and 810 are part of the same circuit line group.)
generating, by the computing system, an interactive technical file that includes the correlations of the circuit devices to the text matched to the enclosures. (paragraphs 34, 49, 60 and 62: The user electronic device may be any device configured to receive input from an operator such as, for example, the user, and generate an interactive SVG file that provides a user-selectable circuit line group. Figure 3 discloses steps for generating an electronics schematic with single wire tracing. At step 312, the processor may group objects into a circuit line group. A circuit line group may include metadata identifying each of the objects that the processor associates with one another. At step 316, the processor may generate the schematics output file. The schematics output file receives a user selection. The user electronic device presents the first circuit line group on the display of the user electronic device. The first circuit line group may be presented on the display of the user electronic device in a different color than the color of the second circuit line group.)
Karnia fails to specifically disclose receiving, by a computing system, a schematic diagram that graphically describes an electronic system utilizing circuit diagrams, and a connectivity description separate from the schematic diagram that describes that abstract electrical connectivity of the electronic system represented in the schematic diagram.
In related art, Mankin discloses receiving, by a computing system, a schematic diagram that graphically describes an electronic system utilizing circuit diagrams, (paragraphs 4, 53, 93-96 and 99-100; Mankin discloses that an electronic design includes functional electronic elements and the interconnections between their inputs and outputs. Mankin discloses that front-end designers record those functional elements and interconnections on one or more “graphical schematic diagrams” and provide the schematic sheets to the back-end designers. In paragraph 53, a schematic diagram of a circuit is shown containing flip-flops, AND gates, signal lines and interconnections between the inputs and outputs of those circuit elements. Mankin discloses a computing implementation in which client computers download electronic design data and execute design applications, including a schematic editor while displaying a schematic diagram for a selected electronic design object on the client computer.) and a connectivity description separate from the schematic diagram (paragraphs 6, 93-100; Mankin discloses transferring schematics and netlists, which is typically a separate document or computer file, as design files, downloading electronic design data to client computers for processing by design applications, including a schematic editor and displaying schematic diagrams on the client computer.) that describes that abstract electrical connectivity of the electronic system represented in the schematic diagram. (paragraph 4; the netlist describes the logical, rather than physical or graphical, connectivity of the design because it identifies the signals and the logical elements connected to each signal; paragraphs 53-58; Mankin discloses that the connectivity information may be represented non-graphically through a connectivity based data model describing the circuit in terms of functional cells, input and output ports and signal nets.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Mankin into the teachings of Karnia to effectively improve the reliability and completeness of a technical file for electronic design automation.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15, Karnia, as modified by Mankin, discloses the claimed invention wherein identifying, by the computing system, one of the circuit devices includes a connector having one or more pins; (paragraph 34: pin objects) and correlating, by the computing system, the text matched to the enclosure representing the circuit device to at least one of the pins based on a relative alignment of the pins with the text in the schematic diagram. (paragraph 71: Karnia determines relationships using coordinates using objects sharing the same Y coordinate and proximity thresholds)
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, Karnia, as modified by Mankin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the text is classified as included within one of the enclosures, outside of the enclosures, or in alignment with one or more wire lines in the schematic diagram. (paragraph 25: associate a objects to other objects based on text labels of the respective objects, based on distance relationships of the geometry of the objects, based on line weights in the SVG file; paragraphs 44-46: circuit block object has text within its boundaries and determine that there is an association between text data and line or other objects because the string data is disposed parallel to and proximate to the object geometry)
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, Karnia, as modified by Mankin, discloses the claimed invention wherein matching, by the computing system, the text to one of the wire lines in the schematic diagram based, at least in part, on the classification that indicates the text is in alignment with the one or more wire lines and a proximity of the text to the wire lines, (paragraph 25: associate a objects to other objects based on text labels of the respective objects, based on distance relationships of the geometry of the objects, based on line weights in the SVG file; paragraphs 44-46: circuit block object has text within its boundaries and determine that there is an association between text data and line or other objects because the string data is disposed parallel to and proximate to the object geometry) wherein the interactive technical file includes a correlations of the wire line to the text. (paragraphs 34, 44-46: user-selectable circuit line group)
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Karnia, as modified by Mankin, discloses the claimed invention wherein identifying, by the computing system, components and their connectivity from a connectivity description of the electronic system associated with the schematic diagram, wherein matching the text to the enclosures in the schematic diagram is based, at least in part, on the classifications of the text and the components and their connectivity from the connectivity description. (paragraph 25: Associate objects to other objects based on text labels of the respective objects, based on distance relationships of the geometry of the objects, based on line weights in the SVG file, and in other ways.)
Claims 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnia in view Mankin and in further view of Gootee (US 2014/0229426 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Karnia, as modified by Mankin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein identifying, by the computing system, a drafting style associated with a manufacturer of the schematic diagram, wherein the matching the text to the enclosures in the schematic diagram based, at least in part, on the classifications of the text.
In related art, Gootee discloses identifying, by the computing system, a drafting style associated with a manufacturer of the schematic diagram, wherein the matching the text to the enclosures in the schematic diagram based, at least in part, on the classifications of the text. (paragraphs 120-123: When the user selects at least one file to upload to the system, the user may specify whether the selected files to be uploaded are compliant with any standard format, naming of each sheet, and the like. If the user is unsure of whether the files selected for uploading are compliant with a specific standard, the electronic blueprint system 100 enables the user to specify the region on each page at which the sheet name resides (e.g., lower-right, lower-left, upper-right, upper-left, or varies) and even input an example sheet name format by inputting an example sheet name.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Gootee into the teachings of Karnia and Mankin for efficient management and viewing of electronic data and document.
Claims 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnia in view Mankin and in further view of Hunt (US 2003/0098862 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Karnia, as modified by Mankin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the schematic diagram is in a computer graphics metafile (CGM) format and the interactive technical file is a scalable vector graphics (SVG) format.
In related art, Hunt discloses the schematic diagram is in a computer graphics metafile (CGM) format and the interactive technical file is a scalable vector graphics (SVG) format. (paragraphs 14-16 and 39-46)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunt into the teachings of Karnia and Mankin to effectively allow any type of drawing, whether raster or vector, to be transformed into an intelligent scalable vector graphics objects.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights