Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 2018

14889481 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/889,481 11/06/2015 45113 7590 08/27/2018 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yong Feng Zhao UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2013P07731WOUS 6360 EXAMINER MAPAR,BDAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YONG FENG ZHAO, HUI QIN, XIUCHANG LI, JAMES JOSEPH WOJCIK, DEREK ENGLAND, and FENG YU Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-17, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to modeling of blends on a solid model of a pocket. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for accurately modeling blends in a solid model, the method performed by a data processing system and compnsmg: receiving a solid model including a plurality of faces by the data processing system; identifying a pocket from the plurality of faces, by the data processing system, including a pocket edge to be blended; performing an analyze pockets process on the pocket by the data processing system to identify at least one of undercuts, angled walls, or tool inaccessibility areas; displaying pocket details to a user by the data processing system, the pocket details including the identified at least one of undercuts, angled walls, or tool inaccessibility areas; identifying and displaying to the user at least one selectable tool type and selectable tool dimension for machining the pocket, by the data processing system; receiving a selection from the user, of the identified tool type and tool dimension for machining the pocket, by the data processing system; performing a blend pocket process, by the data processing system, to model blends on the pocket edge based on the selected tool type and tool dimension for machining the pocket, including comparing the selected tool type and tool dimension, by the processing system, to a dimension of the pocket to detect and report to the user problem areas; receiving a further selection by the data processing system from the user that minimizes the reported problem areas; adding a blend to the solid model at the pocket edge, by the data processing system according to the blend pocket process and the further selection, to produce a modified solid model; and 2 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 displaying the modified solid model by the data processing system. App. Br. 15-16 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Rameau US 2011/0282632 Al Nov. 17, 2011 Somavar Muniappan, Vinodhkumar, "Automatic Feature Recognition and Tool Path Generation Integrated with Processing Planning" A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO (2012) ("Soma var"). Denkena B., et al., "CAD-based cost calculation of mould cavities," PROD. ENG. RES. DEVEL. vol. 5, pp. 73-79 (Oct. 26, 2010) ("Denkena"). Mansour, S., "Automatic generation of part programs for milling sculptured surfaces," 127 JOURNAL OF MATERIALS PROC. TECH., pp. 31- 39 (Mar. 12, 2002) ("Mansour"). Solidworks Whitepaper, "Designing Better Products with Solidworks Premium," (2010) ("SolidWorks"). Regli, W.C. et al., "Technical Research Report: Extracting Alternative Machining Features: An Algorithmic Approach," T.R. 94--55, INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS RESEARCH, ( 1994) ("Regli"). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. 2 2 The rejection under Â§ 101 was initially withdrawn in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner subsequently reinstituted the rejection in the Answer as a new ground of rejection. Ans. 27-33. 3 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rameau, Somavar, Denkena, Mansour, and SolidW orks. Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rameau, Soma var, Denkena, Mansour, SolidW orks, and Regli. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103? ANALYSIS First Issue The Examiner rejects the claims as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. The Examiner determines the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "manipulating geometric surfaces and design rule tolerances of a solid model." Ans. 28. The Examiner further finds the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because "their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementations." Ans. 29. Appellants argue the Examiner erred because even if the Examiner's characterization of the claims is correct, a process of "manipulating Appellant did not re-open prosecution, and instead argued against the rejection in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 2-5. 4 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 geometric surface and design rule tolerances of a solid model" is not abstract. Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue the Examiner's characterization of the claims ignores the technical features of the claims and reduces them to broad generalizations. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants also contend the claims are similar to those found eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because they are limited to specific technical features and do not improperly monopolize the alleged abstract idea. Reply Br. 3. Appellants also challenge the Examiner's determination that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In particular, Appellants argue the combination of features amount to more than the abstract idea because they "yield the benefit of increasing the ease and accuracy of model blends on internal edges, e.g., to produce blends that will better represent the actual pocket geometry as it will be machined." Reply Br. 4. Appellants also contend the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient evidence under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to support the finding that the elements in the claim are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants. Under the new examination procedure published online by the USPTO on April 19, 2018, entitled "Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)" (hereinafter "Berkheimer Memorandum"), there is a new fact finding requirement for Examiners, as applicable to rejections under Â§ 101. Specifically, Examiners must now provide specific types of evidence to support a finding that claim elements 5 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 ( or combinations of elements) are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, the Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea is predicated, at least in part, on an unsupported finding that Appellants' claims are directed to routine, conventional, computer operations. See, e.g., Ans. 28 ( characterizing claimed process steps as conventional operations of comparing, manipulating, and displaying data). As such, we find persuasive Appellants' argument that the Examiner is failed to provide sufficient evidence based on: (1) Berkheimer (881 F.3d at 1369), and (2), the Berkheimer Memorandum, which changed the examination procedures to be fully compliant with Berkheimer. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of Appellants' claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. 3 Second Issue Appellants argue claim 1 as representative of claims 2, 7-9, and 14-- 17, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Rameau teaches the use of pocket blends and/or fillets in CAD software. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner further finds Somavar teaches that feature recognition algorithms were known, and in particular, algorithms for recognizing pockets and edges. Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds Denkena teaches that CAD software was known to detect undercuts 3 We further note that, although we do not reverse the rejection on this basis, we see merit in Appellants' argument that the characterization of the claims as being directed to the abstract idea of "manipulating geometric surfaces and design rule tolerances of a solid model" is overly broad and does not give adequate consideration to the details of the features recited therein. 6 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 and also to address issues relating to the machining undercuts. Final Act. 8- 9. The Examiner further finds Denkena also demonstrates that it was known to determine appropriate tools for machining pockets by taking into account sizes and undercuts, and to select the appropriate tool. Final Act. 9. The Examiner relies on Mansour to show that it was known to allow user selection of cutting tools. Final Act 10. And finally, the Examiner relies on SolidW orks to show that it was known in the prior art for CAD software to identify and minimize problem areas. Final Act. 10-11. Based on our understanding of the positions set forth in Appellants' briefs, Appellants argue the following: (1) "there is no reasonable apparent reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the combination of Rameau, Denkena, Somavar, and Mansour with Solidworks" (App. Br. 10, 12); (2) Denkena teaches erosion instead of blending (App. Br. 11); and (3) Denkena and SolidW orks do not teach the "adding a blend" limitation in claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our own the reasoning and explanations set forth on pages 30-33 of the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 30-33. We address each argument below for further emphasis. The essence of Appellants' first argument is that because the teachings of the various cited references are in many ways duplicative, there would be no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the references in the manner proposed by the Examiner, and the rejection must therefore rely on impermissible hindsight. See App. Br. 10. We do not find this argument persuasive for two reasons. First, Appellants do not explain why the rationale for combining SolidWorks with Rameau provided by the Examiner is insufficient. As the Examiner explains, "[t]he Solidworks 7 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 reference directly encourages the use of its systems in 3D model design," and as such "motivate[s] one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Solidwork's features to modeling methodologies," such as those described in the remaining cited references. Ans. 32. The Examiner further explains that "the features of Solidworks cited in the rejection are noted as allowing a user to 'easily identify potential problem areas upfront and reduce the number of costly prototypes' (Solidworks, p.3)." Id. Merely alleging that the combination relies on hindsight is not persuasive of Examiner error where, as is the case here, the Examiner has provided "articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds ... must ... [include] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness"). Appellants' second argument is also not persuasive of error. Appellants contend the Examiner's reliance on Denkena is misplaced because Denkena teaches addressing pockets via erosion, a reductive machining process, instead of blending, which is an additive process. App. Br. 11. Appellants make a similar argument with respect to SolidW orks. Id. However, the Examiner does not rely on either Denkena or SolidWorks for the claimed "blending." Rather, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Rameau in this regard. Ans. 31 ("[Appellants' arguments] fail to address the teachings of Rameau, the relied upon reference for rendering the claim's blending features obvious in the combination."). We also are not persuaded by Appellants' third argument that Denkena and SolidW orks do not teach the "adding a blend" limitation in 8 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 claim 1. Appellants' assert that the "adding a blend" must be based on both a blend pocket process and a user selection that minimizes problem areas. App. Br. 12. As explained by the Examiner, however, Rameau teaches performing a blend pocket process (Rameau ,r,r 7 4--7 6), and Denkena teaches modeling based on selected tool types and tool dimensions (Denkena p. 76-77). Final Act. 9; Ans. 31. Thus, taken together, Rameau and Denkena teach the claimed "blend pocket process." Similarly, SolidWorks teaches the identification of problem areas and receiving selections to minimize them. See Ans. 32. Thus, the Examiner correctly relies upon SolidWorks' minimization of problem areas together with the blend pocket process as taught by Rameau/Denkena to find the prior art renders the "adding a blend" limitation obvious. Appellants' argument suggests that the "adding a blend" limitation, or more specifically, the two determinations that form the basis of the blending, must be found entirely within a single reference. See App. Br. 11. Such an argument is inconsistent with the law of obviousness, under which "[i]t is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art," In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and "[i]n determining whether obviousness is established by combining the teachings of the prior art, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted). Here, in finding claim 1 obvious, the Examiner properly relies on all of the teachings in the cited references, including what their combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in reaching the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' third 9 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 argument, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as of claims 2, 7- 9, and 14--17, for which claim 1 was presented as representative. Dependent Claims 6, 13, and 20 Appellants also argue separately for patentability of claims 6, 13, and 20, which each recite the limitation "wherein the further selection includes a comer clearance dimension to minimize a sharp tum tool path at a comer, wherein the blend added to the solid model is generated by the pocket process according to the comer clearance dimension." App. Br. 16 (claim 6), 18 (claim 13), and 20 (claim 20). In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner relies on Regli as teaching the recited "comer clearance dimension." Final Act. 29 ( citing Regli pp. 8, 12, 18, and Fig. 8). The Examiner finds that Regli teaches taking machinability considerations of sharp comers into account by selecting a comer radius parameter which offsets convex comers inward. Id. The Examiner explains that the offsetting of the convex comers is a form of blending, and because it is based on comer parameters, it is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of "comer clearance." Id. Appellants argue Regli "discusses adjusting a milling profile to provide an offset feature." App. Br. 13. Appellants argue Regli, like Denkena, is used in the context of machining parts and not creating blends. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants do not explain why Regli' s offsetting of convex comers based on comer parameters is insufficient to render obvious the disputed limitation in claim 6. As the Examiner explains in the Answer, "[t]he interpretation that a 'comer radius parameter falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of comer clearance' ... is not addressed or even rebutted by [A]ppellant." Ans. 33. 10 Appeal2018-005661 Application 14/889 ,481 Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 and we sustain its rejection, along with that of claims 13 and 20. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-1 7, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Because we have affirmed the rejection of each claim under at least one ground, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-17, and 20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 11