Background: The Legal Framework
Under Chinese patent law, an invention must demonstrate "inventiveness," defined as possessing prominent substantive features and representing notable progress over the existing technology. The assessment typically follows a structured three-step approach: identifying the closest prior art, determining the invention's distinguishing features and the technical problem solved, and evaluating whether the solution would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Case Profile
Our firm represented the applicant for the invention titled "Method, System, Device, and Computer-Readable Storage Medium for Bridge Model Matching" (Application No.: 202510721775.6). The initial office action rejected the claims based on a prior art document concerning coordinate system conversion, asserting a lack of inventive step.
Our Analysis and Prosecution Strategy
A detailed technical and legal analysis was conducted to construct the response. The argument centered on two primary distinguishing features that collectively solved a distinct technical problem not addressed by the prior art.
1. Technical Distinction: Geometric Calculation vs. Data Fitting
The examiner initially considered the use of geometric angles to determine a transformation matrix a conventional technique. Our response provided a technical comparison: the cited prior art relied on the "four-parameter principle," requiring multiple measured control points and statistical fitting (e.g., least squares method), introducing data dependency and potential error propagation.
In contrast, the claimed invention utilized a geometric analytical method, calculating the matrix directly via the angular relationship between preset lines and their coordinate system baselines. This approach was shown to be deterministic, eliminating reliance on field measurements and complex fitting processes, thereby enhancing accuracy and applicability in scenarios with limited control points. This shift from empirical data fitting to deterministic geometric derivation was presented as a substantive technical difference.
2. Technical Distinction: Integrated Spatial Mapping and Property Transfer
The examiner also viewed "coordinate range judgment" and "information transfer" as obvious implementations. Our analysis clarified that the prior art focused solely on coordinate transformation, maintaining only topological logic without disclosing a method for establishing precise spatial correspondence between specific model components, let alone automated property transfer.
The invention was shown to introduce a two-stage process: first, establishing precise component-to-component mapping by verifying spatial containment within coordinate ranges; second, automatically propagating specific mechanical properties (e.g., moments, displacements) from one model to its matched counterpart in another. This created an integrated workflow for aligning not just geometry but also associated engineering attributes—a functionality absent from the prior art and not merely a routine combination of known steps.
The argument concluded that the combination of these features solved the articulated problem of achieving accurate, efficient, and information-rich model matching without dependence on extensive manual measurement or adjustment. It was further noted that the persistence of manual processes in the industry suggested the solution was not obvious.
Outcome
Following the submission of this reasoned response, the patent examiner accepted the arguments regarding inventive step. The application proceeded to grant, securing patent rights for the client's invention.
Our Role
This case demonstrates our firm's methodology: conducting a precise technical dissection of the invention against the prior art, formulating legally sound arguments based on the guidelines for inventive step, and presenting a clear, persuasive case to the patent office. We focus on transforming complex innovations into protected intellectual property through structured analysis and advocacy.
鄂公网安备 42010402001546号