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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 24, phrase "welded construction” (lines 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 20) lacks sufficient antecedent basis and should recite: the welded housing construction. Concerning the phrase “database having recorded therein a partly variable construction kit”, Applicant points to paragraphs [0012] in original specification. However, examiner contends that description in this paragraph is generally vague with fluctuating definition(s). For example, paragraph [0012] states: “having at least two alternatively usable parts or having at least one (component) part which is variable with regard to at least one parameter”- this convoluted statement does not define what is meant by “alternatively usable parts” and whether they are different from “standardized parts”? Consequently, step of “resorting for the at least partly computer-assisted definition of the welded construction to a database having recorded therein a partly variable construction kit in which at least two standardized parts are recorded, with one of the at least two standardized parts being selected…” is ambiguous since it is subject to conflicting interpretations of what is recited construction kit. In CAD manufacturing art, “standardized parts” are pre-defined parts typically found in the digital library and also known as “off-the-shelf” parts; common examples include bearings, fasteners, gears, motors and seals etc. Concerning the “construction kit”, the original specification states:
[0012] A construction kit according to the present disclosure is especially understood to mean a dataset having a multitude of construction elements or components that are of limited availability, for example, in a manufacturing process or can be provided for a particular construction task. A partly variable construction kit according to the present disclosure especially means a construction kit having at least two alternatively usable parts and/or having at least one (component) part which is variable with regard to at least one parameter, where the construction kit additionally also comprises standardized parts, such that a selection of parts can also be made depending on whether/which standardized parts are available or usable.
Based on this paragraph [0012], “construction kit” appears to be any dataset, which is generic term and can be any type of multitude of data, including parameters. Due to lack of clear guidance in the specification, one would not be able to determine the metes & bounds of claimed variable construction kit. Furthermore, added step of “segmenting and generating the welded construction…” is indeterminate because it is confusing how the construction is segmented even before generating? The recited unclear language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claim 24 is taken to mean:
A method of providing a welded housing construction for transmissions generated by computer-assisted manner, the method comprising: defining an individual construction-specific input parameter selected from a group consisting of build size parameter and build shape parameter; utilizing a database having data related to form the welded housing construction with at least two standardized parts; generating the welded housing construction in a computer-assisted manner using at least two standardized parts and taking into account the individual construction-specific input parameter.
With respect to claim 26-27, feature of “dividing the welded construction into predefined segments and into modules” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether there is any difference between segments vs. a modules? The limitations “wherein the computer-assisted definition/generation of the welded construction involves reference to the database with the partly variable construction kit in which the segments and modules are recorded and from which the segments and modules suitable for the welded construction are selected in a computer-assisted manner” is convoluted and conflicting. It is not clear what is meant by feature “in the case of at least partial standardization by inclusion of at least one of the predefined standardized segments”? Moreover, limitation “runtime-generated” in claim 27 is indefinite in scope. Applicant’s specification attempts to define “runtime-generated” in paragraph [0032], however, the language in this paragraph is even more confusing: the term “runtime-generated” here refers in particular to the computer-assisted conversion of the construction object to be generated in each case (especially transmissions or installable parts) proceeding from the input parameters with utilization of a/the data basis available or to be generated for the respective application (partly variable construction kit) to the object utilizable for the planned overall construction.– this lacks clarity and fails to define metes & bounds of the claim. The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
With respect to claim 28, limitations “partly variable construction kit is a digitally integratable construction kit in which data management or data utilization is effected” are ambiguous and indefinite in scope for same reasons explained in claim 24 above. Furthermore, it is not clear what is meant by “digitally integratable”? The construction kit is generally defined as a “dataset”, which includes digital representation on a computer as typically understood by ordinary skilled artisan. Moreover, “data management or data utilization” are vague and indeterminate terms without actual clear context of underlying process.
With respect to claims 30-35, examiner notes that features following term “optionally” are not required..
With respect to claim 35, limitation “a variation of parameters in an optimization parameter of a variable runtime-generated part of the welded construction” is indefinite in scope; also see rejection of claim 27 above concerning runtime-generated.
For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claims 25-39 are taken to mean: dividing the welded construction into predetermined parts or segments representation and selecting at least two parts or segments and parameters suitable for the welded construction in a computer-assisted manner.
With respect to claim 42, the step of generating construction data is indefinite in scope for substantially same reasons explained in claim 24 above.
With respect to claim 43, phrase "welded construction” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and should recite: the welded housing construction. The limitations “a modularized or modularly constructed welded housing in segment design; a segment formed from two or more parts; and a module generated from the segment” are ambiguous because it is not clear what is meant by “modularized or modularly constructed”? Moreover, the specification fails to define whether there is a difference between a segment vs. a module? The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 44-45 are ambiguous for several reasons. First of all, employing the method of claim 24 is indefinite in scope for substantially same reasons explained above. Moreover, the specification fails to define whether there is a difference between a segment vs. a module? It is confusing what is meant by the term “modularized”? In claim 45, “partly standardized welded construction” is indeterminate and lacks clear definition.
With respect to claim 46, limitation “partly variable construction kit” is ambiguous in scope for reasons explained in claim 24 above. It is not clear what is meant by “modularized or modularly constructed”? Moreover, the specification fails to define whether there is a difference between a segment vs. a module? The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claims 42-46 are taken to mean:
42. A method of manufacturing a welded housing construction, the method comprising: utilizing a database having data related to form the welded housing construction and at least two standardized parts and parameters related to the welded housing construction.
43. A welded housing construction, produced by the method set forth in claim 24, the welded housing construction comprising a segment formed from two or more parts.
44. A welded housing construction, produced by installing standardized parts and variable parts by employing the method set forth in claim 24, the welded housing construction comprising a segment formed from two or more parts.
45. A non-transitory computer program product comprising commands which,
when the computer program product is executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform the method set forth in claim 24.
46. A construction kit data and a database designed for provision of a welded construction generated according to the method set forth in claim 24.
The claims remain replete with significant 112(b) issues and Applicant is required to make appropriate corrections. Without clear scope of the claims, effective prior art search and examination cannot be conducted. The following rejection is made as best understood given indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 24-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (US 7398129, hereafter “Ishii”) in view of Sebastian (US 5552995).
Regarding claim 24, Ishii discloses a method of providing a welded construction generated by computer-assisted manner (CAD/CAM- figs. 4-5; col. 2, lines 6-21, 33-49), the method comprising: defining an individual construction-specific input parameter selected from a group consisting of build size parameter and build shape parameter (3D geometry data and attribute parameters- col. 1, lines 42-53); utilizing a database 44 (fig. 4) having data related to form the welded construction (VPX- virtual product construction- figs. 1-2 assembly; col. 4, lines 30-63) with at least two standardized parts (conventionally available in the CAD digital library); generating the welded construction in a computer-assisted manner using the at least two standardized parts and taking into account the individual construction-specific input parameter (figs. 4-5; col. 5, line 4 thru col. 6, line 56). Examiner notes that features of “recorded partly variable construction kit” and segmenting & generating step are indefinite in scope. conventionally known as part of the CAD library for manufacturing and this feature is within common knowledge of ordinary skilled in the art.
Ishii is silent with respect to welded construction being housing or enclosure, however, such assembly is known in the art. Analogous to Ishii, Sebastian is also drawn to computer-based engineering design (CAD) to make a construction or part (abstract, figs. 3, 6; col. 5, lines 10+). Sebastian teaches generating an enclosure/housing using a box construct (col. 7, lines 26-35; col. 14- Table 1- housing template). As example, the box may function as an electrical enclosure with given dimensional requirements (col. 12, lines 49-52; col. 21, lines 1-9) and is suitable for industrial transmissions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form an enclosure or box construct in the CAD method of Ishii for the purpose of desired utility such as electronic enclosure, as suggested by Sebastian.
As to claims 25-39, Ishii discloses dividing the welded construction into predetermined parts/segments representation (see fig. 2- representing virtual parts (VPX)) and selecting at least two parts or segments and parameters suitable for the welded construction in a computer-assisted manner generating (figs. 4-5; col. 5, line 4 thru col. 6, line 56).
As to claim 40, Ishii discloses the method further comprising manually inputting the individual construction-specific input parameter for the 3D part/shape via GUI (user input into computer- col. 1, lines 35-40).
As to claim 41, Ishii discloses the method further comprising: creating a digital copy of the welded construction (VPX- virtual product model); and recording the digital copy in the database (figs. 2-5).
Regarding claims 42-44, Ishii discloses a method of manufacturing a welded assembly of 3D sheet metal parts (col. 2, lines 40-49; col. 5, lines 46-62), the method comprising: utilizing a database 44 (fig. 4) having data related to form the welded construction (VPX- virtual product construction- figs. 1-2 assembly; col. 4, lines 30-63) with at least two standardized parts (conventionally available in the CAD digital library) and parameters related to the welded construction (figs. 4-5; col. 1, lines 42-53). Sebastian is also drawn to computer-based engineering design (CAD) to make a construction or part (abstract, figs. 3, 6; col. 5, lines 10+). Sebastian teaches generating an enclosure/housing using a box construct (col. 7, lines 26-35; col. 14- Table 1- housing template). As example, the box may function as an electrical enclosure with given dimensional requirements (col. 12, lines 49-52; col. 21, lines 1-9) and is suitable for industrial transmissions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form an enclosure or box construct in the CAD method of Ishii for the purpose of desired utility such as electronic enclosure, as suggested by Sebastian.
Regarding claims 45-46, Ishii teaches a non-transitory computer program product (CAM software and storage medium) comprising commands which, when the computer program product is executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform the method set forth in claim 24 (col. 8, lines 25-55; figs. 4-5; col. 10, lines 46-65). Sebastian teaches forming a housing construction suitable for industrial transmissions (col. 7, lines 26-35; col. 14- Table 1- housing template). As example, the box may function as an electrical enclosure with given dimensional requirements (col. 12, lines 49-52; col. 21, lines 1-9). The program/software product in combination of Ishii & Sebastian encompasses construction kit dataset & database for the welded housing construction.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) have been considered but they are not persuasive to overcome 112 rejection(s). Applicant is requested to make appropriate clarifications. As best understood, new grounds of 103 rejection(s) has been set forth above, now also relying on reference of Sebastian (US 5552995).
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735