US 11320257

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Method note (important)

I could not query USPTO Patent Center/Assignment or the CAFC docket directly with the tools available. What follows comes from (a) the authoritative full text of US 11,320,257 B2 you supplied, and (b) web searches performed just now. Search results did not surface any district-court or Federal Circuit docket referencing 11,320,257. I therefore report no litigation found — this is a negative search result, not proof that none exists. Searches for "11320257" plus litigation terms returned only unrelated patents (e.g., Supernus/Trokendi ORANGE Book patents, Stratasys v. Bambu, Nokia v. Amazon, VB Assets v. Google) that merely contain overlapping digit strings. Do not read those as related.

Bibliographic record (US 11,320,257 B2)

One search result attributed a similarly named inventor to Sony ("Toshimasa Kobayashi — 23 Patents at Sony"). I treat that as unreliable name-matching and did not rely on it; the assignee of record for this patent is Subaru.

Abstract (as issued)

A component machining apparatus includes a measurement result acquiring unit and a machining data generator. The measurement result acquiring unit acquires a measurement result obtained by a measurer configured to measure a three-dimensional shape of a manufactured component among components of a structure, the manufactured component being manufactured earlier than a component of interest. The machining data generator generates machining data of the component of interest based on the measurement result of the manufactured component.

Note: the issued claims are materially narrower than the abstract. The abstract reflects only two units; claim 1 adds a virtual model generator, a machining device, and an "excess" removal limitation.

Plain-language overview of the independent claim (claim 1)

Claim 1 is a four-element apparatus claim directed to "measure-the-already-built-part, then machine the next part to fit":

1. Measurement result acquiring unit — gets a measurement result from an external measurer (the spec names a laser tracker or camera, ¶ describing measurer 4) that measures the three-dimensional shape of an already-manufactured component of a structure. That component must have been manufactured prior to the "component of interest," and both must be assembled together afterward to form the structure.
2. Virtual model generator device — uses that measurement result to generate a three-dimensional virtual model of the component of interest, generated such that no gap exists between the manufactured component and the component of interest. (The printed claim reads "no gap exits," which appears to be a typographical error; I have not corrected it.)
3. Machining data device — generates machining data for the component of interest based on that virtual model. Per the spec this is an NC program with tool movement routes and tool selection.
4. Machining device — performs a removal process on the component of interest based on the generated machining data.

Plus the distinguishing wherein-clauses:

• The component of interest includes an "excess" that is a coupling portion to be coupled to the manufactured component, and the excess protrudes toward the manufactured component when the two are coupled (spec: excess W1a on workpiece W1, thickened relative to the 3D model at regions coupling to components 110b–110e).
• When performing the removal process, the machining device removes a part of that excess based on the generated machining data.

So the claim's core is: scan the real, previously built part in its as-assembled state → build a gap-free virtual model of the mating part → generate NC data → machine away a deliberately over-thickened mating region so the new part conforms to the real (imperfect) part.

Dependent claims

• Claim 2 — adds that the measurement is acquired with the manufactured component measured in the attitude in which it is assembled ("in an attitude in assemblage"). This tracks the spec's point that a part may deform under its own weight when assembled differently than when machined, creating model deviation. (The claim says "the measurement device," whereas claim 1 recites a "measurement result acquiring unit" — a terminology inconsistency in the printed text that I have not corrected.)
• Claims 3 and 4 — both add that the machining device machines a workpiece based on the generated machining data to manufacture the component of interest (claim 4 depends from claim 2, claim 3 from claim 1). These are drafted in an unusual fragmentary style introduced by a colon and reciting "the machining device configured to machine…," which reads as a drafting defect rather than a separate structural element; note that claim 1 already recites a machining device performing the removal process, so claims 3/4 largely restate that capability in the context of the pre-machined workpiece.

Technical context from the specification (to frame the claims)

• Problem addressed: manufacturing variance/distortion/assembly-attitude deformation causes gaps in assembled structures; the conventional fix is inserting shims in the gaps (spec cites JP 6174208 B2). The disclosure states shim production increases working steps — the stated problem to solve.
• Worked example (FIGS. 2A–2B, 3): a structure 100 of six components 110a–110f. Components 110a–110e are manufactured first; the measurer measures their 3D shapes; a virtual model of component 110f is generated so it couples to 110b–110e without gaps and serves as the assemblage reference; machining data for 110f is then output; and workpiece W1 (preliminarily machined with excess W1a) has the excess removed.
• Stated benefits: no shims → fewer working steps; reduced gap-tightening → improved assembly accuracy.
• Disclosed alternatives not in the claims: different machining devices or different sites for different components; sequential component-by-component iteration (measure 110a → model 110b → machine 110b → repeat); machining on an assemblage jig/moving dolly with the jig as datum; and omitting preliminary machining so the workpiece is machined in a single event.
• Drafting artifact to be aware of: the description states that after the virtual model is generated, "the machining data generator 16 generates machining data of the component of interest and outputs the machining data to the measurer 4." Context (all other passages) indicates the intended recipient is the machining device 3. I flag this as printed rather than silently correcting it.

Litigation / CAFC docket status

• No CAFC 2026 appeal or district-court complaint referencing 11,320,257 was found in web searches. The patent's own record shows only prosecution events (non-final action 2021-03-10; final rejection 2021-08-12; notice of allowance 2022-01-12; issue fee paid 2022-04-01) — no reissue, reexamination, IPR/PGR, or adversary proceeding listed.
• Uncertainty statement: absence of results is not authoritative proof of absence. A definitive check requires a direct Docket Navigator / PACER / CourtListener query on "11,320,257" and the CAFC docket, plus USPTO Patent Center for the application and assignment records — which I could not execute here.

Cited prior art of record (13 references; the ones most relevant to the claim concept)

• US 2015/0367579 A1 (Airbus Operations SAS) — "Process and device for direct fabrication of a part on a structure."
• US 2018/0113425 A1 (Embraer S.A.) — "Automated system and method to manufacture aeronautic junction parts."
• US 2014/0236334 A1 (The Boeing Company) — "Manufacturing systems and methods."
• EP 3531221 A2 (The Boeing Company) — "Laser scanner scanning using a computer numerical controlled (CNC) system for movement."
• JP 6174208 B2 (加賀産業株式会社 / Kaga Sangyo) — "Sim production method," cited in the background as the shim-based approach being improved upon.
• Also of record: US 5,106,290 (Northrop); US 5,751,584 (Toshiba Kikai); US 2002/0000047 A1 (Yoda); US 2013/0282162 A1 (Hexagon Metrology); US 2011/0246132 A1 and US 2014/0233839 A1 (Mitsubishi Electric); US 2016/0224015 A1 (Makino Milling); US 2018/0154489 A1 (Toshiba Kikai). Non-patent citation: Extended European Search Report in EP 19 20 4913, dated 2020-05-13.

A family-citation of note is US 10,450,053 B2 (The Boeing Company, "Methods using predictive shimming to optimize part-to-part alignment"), which is thematically adjacent (predictive shimming) even though it appears in the family-cites table rather than the examiner-cited list. One citing family member is SE 1900215 A1 (Sandvik Machining Solutions AB).

Bottom line: US 11,320,257 is a live Subaru Corporation patent (expiring 2039-12-11) covering closed-loop, measurement-driven NC machining of a "component of interest" that is deliberately oversized at its mating surfaces ("excess") and then trimmed based on the measured geometry of already-built mating parts, so the assembly closes with no gaps and no shims. I found no adversarial proceedings or CAFC activity involving it.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11320257.

The initial searches returned unrelated results. Let me search more targeted sources.

Search Results: Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,320,257

No litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 11,320,257.

I searched patent-litigation aggregators and general web sources (including RPX Empower litigation records, PTAB/PTACTS filings, and general web searches keyed to the exact patent number and to Subaru Corporation) and found no district court case, ITC action, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 11,320,257 has been asserted, challenged, or otherwise litigated.

What I verified

• Patent identity (per the authoritative text provided): U.S. Patent No. 11,320,257 B2, "Component machining apparatus," assignee Subaru Corporation, application No. 16/655,942, filed 2019-10-17, granted 2022-05-03, priority JP 2018-219856 (2018-11-26).
• Known family: US 2020/0166330 A1 (publication), EP 3663879 A1 (not active / withdrawn), CN 111221297 A (pending), JP 2020086887 A / JP 7510244 B2.
• Google Patents litigation section for this patent shows no litigation entries — only a citations list (13 references), related-family cite (SE 1900215 A1, Sandvik Machining Solutions, which cites this family but is not litigation), and a granted-status record.
• Subaru's litigation activity does appear in the record (e.g., Mimzi, LLC v. Subaru Corporation, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00602, filed 2025-06-04; prior IPRs against Subaru of America involving U.S. 6,324,463; a TTAB opposition), but none of these involve U.S. 11,320,257. I did not return any of these as hits for this patent, per your instruction to exclude similar-but-different numbers.

Required case list

Important caveats and limitations (please verify independently)

• My searches returned no on-point results, but this is a negative finding based on the searches available to me, not a certification that no case exists.
• I could not directly run the specialized queries I would have preferred (e.g., a docket-level query on the Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm, Lex Machina, Westlaw/Lexis, or PACER's patent docket report) because my tool access was exhausted before completing them. Those sources should be checked directly, using the exact string "11,320,257".
• Litigation could exist that is not discoverable through public web indexes, is very recently filed (post-indexing), or was filed under a different caption (e.g., a declaratory-judgment action naming Subaru Corporation). A PACER search on the patent number across all district courts is the definitive check.
• This is consistent with the subject matter: U.S. 11,320,257 claims an internal manufacturing/machining apparatus used to machine components (e.g., aircraft structures). Such process-tool patents held by an operating manufacturer like Subaru are typically not asserted in litigation, unlike consumer-facing electronics patents.

If you'd like, I can outline the exact PACER/Docket Alarm/Lex Machina queries to run for an authoritative confirmation.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal record supplied for US Patent No. 11,320,257 returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings — no active trials, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, and no institution denials — which leaves all four issued claims (1–4) standing untested before the PTAB and gives a defendant no PTAB-based invalidity shortcut and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel leverage; any challenge must be built from scratch.

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding to enumerate. I will not invent docket numbers. The per-proceeding template in the assignment is therefore inapplicable, and I am flagging the negative finding rather than dressing it up.

Independent verification performed. Live searches for the patent number against PTAB-facing sources (USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS, EPO/Google Patents family records, and general web) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, termination, or Federal Circuit appeal tied to US 11,320,257 or its family (JP7510244B2, EP3663879A1, CN111221297A). What did appear were unrelated matters involving Subaru as a defendant (e.g., litigation over third-party patents such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,831,669), which are not AIA trials and have no bearing here.

Caveats on the negative. Search-engine inference is not a substitute for a direct registry query. Confirm with:

• PTAB E2E patent-information search: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/patent-informations
• USPTO Patent Center (prosecution/PTAB tab): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
• PTAB decisions library: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
• Federal Circuit / district docket sweeps: https://www.courtlistener.com and https://www.docketalarm.com

The practical inference is nonetheless strong. The application was filed 2019-10-17, published as US20200166330A1 on 2020-05-28, and granted 2022-05-03. That gives a maximum exposure window of a little over three years — a short runway for AIA trials relative to the 9-to-20-year assertion life of most litigated patents.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 1–4 all LIVE and all UNTESTED. No claim of US 11,320,257 has been canceled, narrowed by certificate, disclaimed, or even subjected to an institution decision. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim; claims 2, 3, and 4 depend from claim 1 (claim 4 depends from claim 2). Because no FWD exists, there is no claim-level narrowing to report and no "surviving claim set" analysis to perform — the whole claim set is intact. This also cuts the other way: unlike a hardened patent that has been through a full IPR, this one has never been stress-tested against a well-funded challenger, so its validity record is simply unknown rather than proven.

Estoppel landscape: no estoppel exists. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by a final written decision, and there is none. No petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from raising any ground before a district court or the ITC. Conversely, there is also no benefit — no petitioner has already spent the money developing an invalidity record you could borrow, and no institution decision with favorable findings exists for a court to lean on. Note also that the § 315(b) one-year bar has not been triggered by any complaint asserting this patent that I could locate; if you have been served, that clock is running for you, and it runs independently of the API result. Jurisdictionally, IPR remains available indefinitely for this patent. PGR is not available: the nine-month PGR window under § 321(c) closed roughly 2023-02-03 (nine months after the 2022-05-03 grant), and PGR's § 112 and eligibility grounds are therefore off the table at the Board.

Pattern signals: none. No repeat petitioner, no patent-owner PTAB appeal activity, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears in the chain. Subaru Corporation is a large operating company holding the patent as its original assignee — not an NPE, and not the archetype that attracts aggregator challenges. The absence of IPRs is consistent with a patent that has not been asserted in litigation (I found no complaint asserting US 11,320,257), rather than one that has been asserted and survived. Family-level signals worth noting: the EP counterpart EP3663879A1 is recorded as withdrawn/not-active, and the JP counterpart JP7510244B2 was granted 2024-07-03 — neither is a PTAB event, but the EP withdrawal suggests the family's foreign prosecution did not run cleanly.

Drafting vulnerabilities worth developing outside the PTAB (since IPR cannot reach them). Claim 1 recites "such that no gap exits between the manufactured component and the component of interest" — an apparent typo for "exists," and an antecedent-basis problem lurks in claim 2, which recites "the measurement device" while claim 1 recites a "measurement result acquiring unit" and a "measurer." Claims 3 and 4 also read anomalously — they recite "the machining device configured to machine a workpiece on a basis of the generated machining data so as to manufacture the component of interest" as if restating apparatus elements rather than adding limitations. Under In re Tanaka / § 112(b) principles these are real indefiniteness arguments, and they are unavailable in IPR because § 311(b) confines the Board to §§ 102 and 103 on patents and printed publications. That makes a district court § 112 challenge, not an IPR, the natural first move.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: you cannot point to an invalidating FWD, because none exists. Do not represent to a court or adversary that any claim of US 11,320,257 has been canceled. Map the claims against your accused product first — claim 1's "excess" and "removal process" limitations and the "no gap" negative limitation are meaningful narrowing hooks for non-infringement and for a § 112 indefiniteness attack on "exits"/"the measurement device."
• Build your own prior-art record. No PTAB record exists to leverage, so commission a fresh search with a priority date of 2018-11-26 in mind. Two references already in the family's file are directly on-point and worth a hard look: JP6174208B2 (sim production method — the very shim-based approach the specification disparages as background) and US20180113425A1 / US10450053B2 (Embraer and Boeing automated junction-part / predictive-shimming work). Verify the publication dates of each against the 2018-11-26 priority date before relying on them; anything published after that date is not § 102/§ 103 art against this patent.
• Watch the § 315(b) clock. If you have been served with a complaint asserting the '257 patent, you have one year from service to file an IPR. That is the only hard deadline in play, and it exists only if you have been sued.
• Confirm the current institution regime before filing. Secondary reporting (Willkie client alert, https://www.willkie.com/publications/2025/10/ptab-announces-new-institution-policy) describes a 2025-10-16 Director memorandum moving institution decisions to the Director and proposed rules (published 2025-10-15) that would bar IPRs against patents that have already survived a validity challenge and require petitioners to stipulate out of parallel §§ 102/103 arguments. I cannot confirm from available sources whether those proposed rules were finalized, and I have not verified the memo against the Federal Register directly — check the current Federal Register and USPTO guidance before filing, because either provision would materially change your options.
• Because no PTAB activity exists, say so plainly in any internal validity assessment — but treat the absence as informational, not as a defense. A clean PTAB history for a patent that has never been asserted says nothing about the strength of its claims; the first petitioner to test them will be writing on a blank slate.

I'll verify the assignment record and check for any post-issuance transfers or litigation activity.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 11,320,257 B2

Scope note / data provenance. The findings below are built from the patent's own front-matter and legal-events record (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO assignment and prosecution data, fetched 2026‑09‑24), plus targeted searches that returned no on‑point assignment, litigation, or NPE-listing hits for this patent number. I was not able to open the Assignment Center record directly to capture the correspondent of record field or independently re‑read the reel/frame page images; where a field is unavailable I say so rather than infer it. The one reel/frame below is taken verbatim from the recorded assignment abstract.

Inventors

All six are named as assignors on the single recorded assignment (Reel 050751 / Frame 0064), which conveys "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" to Subaru Corporation and lists assignors SATO, KIKUCHI, TANAKA, and others — i.e., the full inventive entity assigned to the same employer. The subject matter (machining aircraft/structure components, three‑dimensional measurement, NC machining data) is consistent with Subaru's aerospace/aircraft works, and the applications claiming priority (JP 2018‑219856 → JP 7510244 B2) are Subaru filings.

Unusual patterns: none of the classic ones. There is no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, no separate individual assignments, and no inventor-retained rights. All six assigned pre‑filing-effective rights to the employer — the ordinary corporate-inventor pattern.

One caution flag: a third‑party aggregator (patentleaderboard.com) surfaced this patent under a page titled "Toshimasa Kobayashi — 23 Patents at Sony," listing only five of the six inventors. That is an apparent database mis‑attribution, not a USPTO record; there is no assignment, reissue, or transfer in the record that would make Sony an owner of this patent. Treat it as noise.

Original assignee

Subaru Corporation (Tokyo, JP) — originally named as applicant/assignee; also recorded as original assignee on the issue front matter.

• Business: Publicly traded Japanese manufacturer (TSE: 7270) of automobiles and, relevant here, aerospace/aircraft structures through its aerospace division (wing and fuselage work for Boeing and others). Formerly Fuji Heavy Industries; renamed Subaru Corporation in 2017.
• Product embodying the claims: The claims recite a component machining apparatus (measure→virtual model→machining data→removal machining of an excess on the coupling portion). This is production-floor process/manufacturing equipment, not a consumer product. Subaru is an operator with real manufacturing facilities that plausibly practice the disclosed method in its aircraft-component works; the apparatus is internal tooling rather than a shipped article of commerce. I did not find a separately marketed "component machining apparatus" product sold by Subaru.
• Status: Operating company, in good standing. No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition of the patent portfolio. Maintenance fee for year 4 paid 2025‑10‑22 (large entity), and the patent's adjusted expiration is listed as 2039‑12‑11 with legal status Active.

Assignment timeline

The record contains exactly one recorded assignment — the initial inventor→employer conveyance. There are no post‑issuance transfers, security interests, liens, name changes, mergers, or releases recorded against this patent number.

• 2019‑09‑05 (executed) / recorded 2019‑10‑17 — Reel 050751/0064
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Sato, Yoichi; Kikuchi, Marosuke; Tanaka, Yuki; Shibao, Yasunori; Miyanishi, Haruka; Kobayashi, Toshimasa (individually — "AND OTHERS" as abbreviated in the abstract)
  • Assignee: Subaru Corporation (Tokyo, JP)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the source used. The Google Patents legal-events abstract does not surface the correspondent attorney/firm, and I could not open the Assignment Center page image to read it. Therefore I cannot assess recurrence of this correspondent within this chain (there is only one link anyway) or against any tracked NPE family. Do not read this as confirmation that no correspondent exists — every recording has one; I simply could not capture it.
  • Context: Routine initial corporate assignment — inventors conveying rights to their employer contemporaneously with the US national-stage filing (application 16/655,942, filed 2019‑10‑17, claiming priority to JP 2018‑219856, 2018‑11‑26). Not a sale, not a fire‑sale, not a reorg.

No other entries exist. There is no Assignment Center record of any subsequent ownership event for US 11,320,257.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11320257
    2018 : Priority JP application filed
    2019 : US application filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Subaru Corp
    2022 : Patent issued to Subaru Corp
    2025 : Maintenance fee paid by Subaru

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded assignment runs to Subaru Corporation, a named operating manufacturer, per Reel 050751/0064 (exec. 2019‑09‑05, rec. 2019‑10‑17). No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix appears anywhere in the chain; no registered-agent address; no single-purpose LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Subaru Corporation does not appear on any of the canvassed NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities), and no RPX/Unified high-frequency-plaintiff match was surfaced for this patent or this assignee.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. With only one recorded link, there is no chain across which a correspondent could recur, and I could not capture even that single correspondent name from the source used. Recorded as a data gap, not as a negative finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive assignments; no chained LLCs; no shared-address or common-principal pattern is possible with a single link.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment precedes any suit because no infringement action naming US 11,320,257 was found in the searches run, and the only assignment (2019) predates issuance (2022‑05‑03) by years — i.e., it is an original prosecution-stage assignment, not an assertion-staging transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Subaru Corporation is an active, solvent, publicly traded manufacturer; there is no Chapter 7/11 event and no reorganized-debtor sale of this patent.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer out of Subaru to any third-party NPE; the operating company remains the owner.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. (That is the inverse signal, and it is absent — the patent has not been "neutralized" by a defensive aggregator; it simply remains with its operating-company owner.)

Verdict

Insufficient data — in the rubric's specific sense that the record contains only the original assignment (Reel 050751/0064, executed 2019‑09‑05, recorded 2019‑10‑17) and no subsequent ownership event. There is no evidence of NPE activity of any kind: the sole assignee is Subaru Corporation, an operating manufacturer that paid its 4th-year maintenance fee on 2025‑10‑22 and holds the patent under an adjusted expiration of 2039‑12‑11, and the searches surfaced no litigation or NPE-listing match for this number. The one unresolved item is the correspondent of record, which I could not read from the source used — that field would be captured by pulling the reel image at the Assignment Center.

Verify: USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 11320257) · Google Patents legal events for US11320257B2

I'll research the citations for US 11320257. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me research the remaining citations in parallel.

Prior Art Analysis — US 11,320,257 B2

1. Patent Identification (verified, literal)

I am treating the citation list printed on the face of US 11,320,257 as the authoritative set of references (13 patent citations, 6 family/IDS citations, 1 non-patent citation). I was not able to open USPTO PatentCenter directly in this session; the lists below are drawn from the USPTO-derived citation tables reproduced on the Google Patents record for this patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11320257/en).

2. Claim 1 Element Map (the target to be anticipated)

Claim 1 is a system claim with five conjunctive limitations:

• (A) A measurement result acquiring unit that acquires a measurement result from a measurer measuring a 3-D shape of a manufactured component (manufactured prior to a "component of interest"), the two together being assembled to form the structure.
• (B) A virtual model generator generating a 3-D virtual model of the component of interest using that measurement result, generated such that no gap exists between the manufactured component and component of interest.
• (C) A machining data device generating machining data from that virtual model.
• (D) A machining device performing a removal process based on the machining data.
• (E) The component of interest includes an excess that is a coupling portion protruding toward the manufactured component, and the machining device removes a part of that excess.

Claim 2 adds: the measurer measures the manufactured component in the attitude in assemblage.
Claims 3–4 merely re-state the machining device limitation of claim 1 (dependent boilerplate).

Because claim 1 is a system claim with a machine element, anticipation requires a single reference disclosing the combination of (A)–(E).

3. Citation Table (as listed on the face of US 11,320,257)

(*) Cited by examiner; (†) cited by third party. Non-patent citation: Extended European Search Report in EP 19 20 4913, dated 2020-05-13.

4. Per-Reference Analysis

4.1 US 2014/0236334 A1 — The Boeing Company (granted as US 9,213,786 B2) — strongest § 102 candidate

• Citation: US 2014/0236334 A1, "Manufacturing systems and methods," pub. 2014-08-21; priority 2013-02-20; granted US 9,213,786 B2 on 2015-12-15.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140236334A1/en
• Disclosure: Receives a first and second digital map (3-D representation, e.g., point cloud) of two adjoining components; defines adjoining surfaces; updates the part definition for each component to include the actual adjoining surface; and generates control data to an automatic machine tool to remove an amount of "additional sacrificial material" so the parts fit without shims. Components are initially formed with adjoining portions "slightly thicker than a sum of the applicable design tolerances" — i.e., an intentionally thickened excess at the coupling region.
• Mapping to claims:
• (A) digital map of an already-formed adjoining component measured by CMM/laser tracker/laser radar/photogrammetry [0038] — reads on the measurement result acquiring unit;
• (B) updated part definition ≈ virtual model generated so the parts adjoin with no gap ("fit without shims");
• (C)/(D) generation of machine-tool control data and execution of the removal of sacrificial material;
• (E) "additional sacrificial material in a region surrounding the surface / slightly thicker" reads directly on the protruding excess coupling portion, and its removal reads on "removes a part of the excess."
• Anticipation assessment: This is the closest single reference to claim 1. It plausibly anticipates claim 1 if the "virtual model generator" and "machining data device" are read as the disclosed component modeler / machine control data generator modules. Its principal weakness against claim 1 is that it measures both adjoining components and can re-machine either or both, whereas claim 1 requires measurement of the already-manufactured component and removal on the component of interest only. That difference is a § 103-level difference, not a clean § 102 gap. It does not disclose claim 2 (measurement in the assemblage attitude).
• Also relevant to: claim 4 (workpiece machining based on the data).

4.2 US 2018/0113425 A1 — Embraer S.A. (granted as US 10,324,426 B2) — second strong § 102 candidate

• Citation: US 2018/0113425 A1, "Automated system and method to manufacture aeronautic junction parts," pub. 2018-04-26; priority 2016-10-26; granted US 10,324,426 B2 on 2019-06-18.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180113425A1/en
• Disclosure: Every junction part is manufactured with overmaterial (e.g., ~5 mm). Each part is then measured (laser interferometer / 5-axis scanning) and the "as built" measurements are compared with the model to generate a new trajectory milling program (point-cloud + B-spline reconstructed surface) which is post-processed and sent to a milling machine to mill away the overmaterial. The stated goal is to eliminate gaps between junction parts and the corresponding need for shims.
• Mapping to claims:
• (A) measured "as built" data of a manufactured junction part;
• (B) reconstructed "new surface" to eliminate gaps ≈ virtual model with no gap;
• (C) generated milling program;
• (D) final milling / removal;
• (E) overmaterial is the literal "excess" and the milling step removes it.
• Anticipation assessment: On the surface this reads on every element of claim 1. The main § 102 vulnerability is that the recited "coupling portion protruding toward the manufactured component" is described generally as overmaterial rather than as a directional protruding tab; a challenger would argue the overmaterial at the junction is the coupling portion. This is the reference most likely to be used to invalidate claim 1 in an IPR. It is silent on claim 2 (no "attitude in assemblage" measurement of the mating part).
• Notable admission inside this reference: its background [0009] describes a "known process" — "gap measurement between a first part and a theoretical model… a new model of the gap insertion is created… once the second part has the shape of the gap… the gap between parts is eliminated." That is an admitted prior-art disclosure very close to claim 1's concept, and could be relied on as § 102(a)(1) prior art independent of the reference's own embodiments.

4.3 JP 6174208 B2 — 加賀産業株式会社 (Kaga Sangyo) — background art (shim production)

• Citation: JP 6174208 B2, "Sim production method" (shim production method), prior art 2016-08-04, granted 2017-08-02.
• Relevance: This is the reference the patent's own Background section cites for the conventional shim-insertion approach — "shims are inserted in the gaps to fill up the gaps (for example, Japanese Patent No. 6174208)." The patent then states "the shims are to be manufactured to fit in the gaps, thereby increasing the number of working steps."
• Anticipation assessment: Directed to making a shim, not to gapless machining of a component of interest. It does not disclose elements (B)–(E). It is relevant only as § 103 background establishing the shimming problem the claims purport to solve — and as a statement of what the applicant admitted as prior art.

4.4 US 10,450,053 B2 — The Boeing Company (family/IDS cite) — highly relevant § 102/103 art

• Citation: US 10,450,053 B2, "Methods using predictive shimming to optimize part-to-part alignment," prior art 2016-05-11, granted 2019-10-22.
• Relevance: Predictive shimming uses as-built measurement of a first part to drive the geometry of a mating feature/second part so the pair aligns. It is directed to generating a shim, which cuts against element (B)'s "no gap" virtual model, but its measurement-driven mating-geometry loop is squarely § 103 material against the measurement→model→machining chain.
• Anticipation assessment: Does not anticipate claim 1 (its output is a shim); relevant to claims 1–2 under § 103.

4.5 US 5,106,290 A — Northrop Corporation — weak on-point; background/system-level

• Citation: US 5,106,290 A, "Assembly data model tool system," prior art 1987-04-14, granted 1992-04-21.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5106290A](/patent/US5106290A)/en
• Disclosure: An integrated manufacturing/assembly tool system with profile boards and connector boards; a 3-D computer system with an assembly data model supporting "quality assurance," "shimming labor" reduction, and DNC/NC machining of composite parts.
• Anticipation assessment: Generic CAD/assembly-data-model and NC-machining disclosure. It does not disclose measuring a manufactured component's 3-D shape and feeding that into a no-gap virtual model of a component of interest with a protruding excess subsequently removed. Not an anticipation reference; at most § 103 context. (Companion Northrop patent US 5,033,014 A, "Integrated manufacturing system," appears in the similarity list but is not a citation of US 11,320,257.)

4.6 US 5,751,584 A — Toshiba Kikai Kabushiki Kaisha — § 102/103 against measurement-comparison sub-elements only

• Citation: US 5,751,584 A, "Method for checking interference, method for checking processing program, and method for checking processing propriety," priority 1994-08-15, granted 1998-05-12.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5751584/en
• Disclosure: Three-dimensional measurement detector (CCD/moiré, or probe on the machine spindle) measures the workpiece ("processing material"); the measured shape data is compared, at the same coordinate position, against the "product's shape data" (the intended finished 3-D shape) and a difference/margin test is run; if the difference exceeds a limit the processing program is changed/regenerated.
• Anticipation assessment: Discloses the measurement-of-workpiece → compare-to-model → regenerate the machining program loop, which anticipates/obviates the abstract "measure and re-program" concept. Critically, it compares the raw stock to the design, not a finished manufactured component to a mating component, and it has no gap-free virtual-model or protruding-excess limitation. Not an anticipation reference for claim 1; strong § 103 art for the "measurement result → machining data" linkage and for the on-machine measurement concept.

4.7 US 2002/0000047 A1 — Yukiji Yoda — peripheral

• Citation: US 2002/0000047 A1, "Work form-measuring method and device, and coordinate-measuring machine," prior art 1998-05-11, pub. 2002-01-03.
• Disclosure: Method/device for measuring the form (shape) of a workpiece on a CMM, including alignment/setup and error-correction techniques.
• Anticipation assessment: Discloses a measurer and measurement-result acquisition only (element (A) in isolation). Silent on virtual model, no-gap fit, machining data, and protruding excess. Not an anticipation reference; § 102(a)(1)/§ 103 relevance to the "measurer configured to measure a three-dimensional shape" wording.

4.8 US 2013/0282162 A1 — Hexagon Metrology AB — peripheral

• Citation: US 2013/0282162 A1, "Apparatus and method for dimensional metrology," prior art 2003-10-17, pub. 2013-10-24.
• Disclosure: Dimensional metrology apparatus/methods (coordinate measurement of manufactured parts, alignment/registration to nominal CAD).
• Anticipation assessment: Relevant only to the metrology element (A) and to aligning measured data to a CAD model. No machining-data generation, no no-gap virtual model, no protruding excess removal. Not an anticipation reference.

4.9 US 2011/0246132 A1 — Mitsubishi Electric Corp. — peripheral

• Citation: US 2011/0246132 A1, "Machine motion trajectory measuring device, numerically controlled machine tool, and machine motion trajectory measuring method," prior art 2008-12-09, pub. 2011-10-06.
• Disclosure: Measures the trajectory of machine motion in an NC machine tool (machine-error diagnosis), not the 3-D shape of a manufactured work component to drive a mating-part model.
• Anticipation assessment: Relevant to NC-machine measurement/calibration (elements C/D machinery context). Not an anticipation reference for any of claims 1–4.

4.10 US 2014/0233839 A1 — Mitsubishi Electric Corp. — § 103 on interference checking

• Citation: US 2014/0233839 A1, "Interference checking device and numerical control apparatus," prior art 2013-02-21, pub. 2014-08-21.
• Disclosure: Uses measured/known shapes of a workpiece and machine to run interference (collision) avoidance before/while executing an NC program.
• Anticipation assessment: § 102/§ 103 relevance to the on-machine measurement + simulation before machining idea (akin to US 5,751,584). Silent on no-gap assembly and on protruding excess. Not an anticipation reference for claim 1.

4.11 US 2016/0224015 A1 — Makino Milling Machine Co., Ltd. — § 103 on tool-path generation

• Citation: US 2016/0224015 A1, "Tool path generating method and tool path generating device," prior art 2013-09-13, pub. 2016-08-04.
• Disclosure: Generates tool paths (machining data) from in-process shape measurement of the workpiece, correcting the tool path to the measured actual shape.
• Anticipation assessment: Strong § 103 art for the "generate machining data based on a measurement result" link (element C). It lacks the multi-component, gap-free virtual-model requirement and the protruding-excess limitation. Not an anticipation reference for claim 1.

4.12 US 2015/0367579 A1 — Airbus Operations (SAS) — moderately relevant

• Citation: US 2015/0367579 A1, "Process and device for direct fabrication of a part on a structure," prior art 2014-06-23, pub. 2015-12-24.
• Disclosure: Direct fabrication/deposition of a part onto the structure (e.g., additively building a filler/mating part in situ on the assembled structure), in a manufacturing context aimed at fitting parts to an as-built structure.
• Anticipation assessment: Addresses the same problem (fit a part to an as-built structure without a separate loose shim) but by additive fabrication rather than by the claimed subtractive removal of an excess from a pre-formed component of interest. This is a meaningful claim-1 distinguisher (claim 1 requires the component of interest to include an excess that is then removed). § 103 relevance; not a clean § 102 reference.

4.13 US 2018/0154489 A1 — Toshiba Kikai Kabushiki Kaisha — peripheral

• Citation: US 2018/0154489 A1, "Machine tool and control method of machine tool," prior art 2016-12-07, pub. 2018-06-07.
• Disclosure: NC machine-tool control (tool/workpiece setup, control methods).
• Anticipation assessment: Machinery/control context only; silent on measurement-driven no-gap modeling and protruding-excess removal. Not an anticipation reference.

4.14 EP 3531221 A2 — The Boeing Company — peripheral; timing caveat

• Citation: EP 3531221 A2, "Laser scanner scanning using a computer numerical controlled (CNC) system for movement," prior art 2018-02-26, pub. 2019-08-28.
• Disclosure: Mounting a laser scanner on a CNC system to scan/map large structures/parts.
• Anticipation assessment: Relevant only as a scanner-on-CNC measurement tool (element A support). Note a § 102 timing subtlety: its publication (2019-08-28) post-dates the 2018-11-26 priority date, so it qualifies as prior art only under § 102(a)(2) if it is entitled to its 2018-02-26 effective filing and is treated as the equivalent of a U.S. application publication, or under § 102(a)(1) only as of its actual publication. Not an anticipation reference for the claims as a whole.

5. Additional Related References (appearing in similarity/IDS lists, not citations of US 11,320,257)

• US 9,213,786 B2 — The Boeing Company — the granted version of US 2014/0236334 A1 (see § 4.1).
• US 10,324,426 B2 — Embraer S.A. — the granted version of US 2018/0113425 A1 (see § 4.2).
• US 10,317,886 B1 — "Method and system for automated shim manufacturing" — shim-focused; § 103 background.
• JP 6344890 B2 (Kawasaki Heavy Industries) — component assembly work support; JP 5093760 B2 (Hitachi Plant Technologies) — piping installation support; JP 5391658 B2 (IHI) — defect repair; JP 3482077 B2 — dental prosthesis manufacture; JP 2017196672 A (Shimane University) — bone-member processing. These family/IDS citations are not pertinent to claim 1's component-machining combination.

6. Conclusion — Most Relevant Prior Art

No single citation in the patent's own list is a clean, complete § 102 anticipation of claim 1. The claim requires the combination of (i) measuring an already-manufactured mating component, (ii) deriving a no-gap 3-D virtual model of the component of interest from that measurement, (iii) generating machining data from that model, and (iv) subtractively removing a part of a protruding coupling-portion excess on the component of interest. The cited art is strongest on individual elements and weakest on the combination.

Ranked by threat:

Claim 2 appears to be the most defensible claim. None of the cited references expressly discloses measuring the manufactured component in the attitude in which it is actually assembled (the apparent point of novelty over the Embraer and Boeing approaches, both of which measure parts on jigs/tooling). Note, however, that the patent's own specification supplies the "own-weight deformation when assembled" rationale (see the "may be deformed by its own weight when actually assembled" passage), which should be considered in any obviousness analysis.

Caveats and limitations of this analysis:

1. I did not have live access to USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR in this session; the citation lists above are the USPTO-derived tables as reproduced on the Google Patents record for US 11,320,257 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11320257/en). For a formal validity opinion, the citation lists should be re-verified against the printed patent front page and any supplemental IDS filings.
2. I could not retrieve the full text of US 2002/0000047 A1, US 2013/0282162 A1, JP 6174208 B2, US 2015/0367579 A1, US 2018/0154489 A1, and EP 3531221 A2 in this session; their characterizations rely on their titles, assignees, abstracts, and classification data plus, where available, partial text. Those characterizations should be confirmed against the full documents before being relied upon.
3. Anticipation under § 102 requires every element of a claim in a single reference; where I have identified a reference as touching only some elements, it is not an anticipation reference and is flagged as § 103 material.

I'll research the key prior-art references of record to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me gather details on a few more references of record.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,320,257 B2

Subject: "Component machining apparatus" (Subaru Corporation; app. 16/655,942; priority JP 2018-219856, 2018-11-26; granted 2022-05-03)
Statute: 35 U.S.C. § 103; Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)

Grounding note / scope: This analysis builds on the previously generated sections (bill of particulars, claim construction, prior-art-of-record table). I did not repeat that content. The prior art analyzed is the examiner-cited list of record plus the closely related family citation, per the instruction to "use the results from the Prior Art section." Where I could not retrieve the full issued claim text of a reference (e.g., Embraer US 10,324,426 B2; Boeing US 9,213,786 B2), I relied on the published abstract and description retrieved by search and I say so explicitly. No contradiction with the earlier sections was found; the claim-construction flags there (the "no gap exits" typo; the "measurement device" vs. "measurement result acquiring unit" inconsistency; the fragmentary claims 3/4) are carried forward and are not disturbed by anything found in the art.

1. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A person having ordinary skill as of the 2018-11-26 priority date would hold a bachelor's degree in mechanical, aerospace, or manufacturing engineering (or equivalent), plus roughly 2–5 years of experience in aerostructure assembly, including at least two of: (a) NC/CAM programming and machine-tool operation, (b) large-volume dimensional metrology (laser trackers, laser scanners, photogrammetry, CMMs), and (c) CAD/PLM-based tolerance and assembly modeling. This is the profile of the actual inventors and of the artisan to whom the cited references are directed (all but one are aircraft-manufacturer assembly/metrology disclosures). The field is highly active and highly integrated: the same artisan routinely scans a part and generates an NC program from the scan.

2. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Claim 1 (as printed, including the "no gap exits" typo construed as "no gap exists") has five substantive requirements:

Result: Every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed across the Boeing, Embraer, and Airbus references, and the references are all in the same field, address the same problem (gaps → shims), and expressly seek the same result (shimless assembly).

3. The combinations, and why the artisan would make them

Combination I (strongest): Embraer US 2018/0113425 as primary, alone or with Boeing US 2014/0236334

Embraer alone discloses: overmaterial-built parts (the "excess"), automatic measurement (laser interferometer / scanning, FIG. 6D), comparison of as-built measurement to a model, automatic generation of a new trajectory milling program (an NC program — the claimed "machining data"), and milling away the overmaterial on a 5-axis machine to eliminate gaps and obviate shims (FIG. 6F). That maps to limitations 1–5 almost verbatim. To the extent the "virtual model … [in which] no gap exists" is argued to require a standalone revised CAD solid rather than a regenerated tool path, Boeing US 2014/0236334 supplies it (updated part definitions with adjoining-surface definitions for the machining tools) and Airbus US 2015/0367579 supplies a literal "adjusted model."

Motivation / expectation of success:

• Same problem, same field. Embraer's own background states: "It would be desirable to avoid the need for shims." Boeing's background states the same ("eliminate, or at least to reduce, the need for custom-machined fillers"), as does Airbus ("defects of contact … due to the clearances … inherent in the jointing of elements of large dimensions"). Motivation to combine is therefore stated in the references themselves, not inferred. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; In re Kahn.
• Explicit lead-forward. Subaru's own spec cites JP 6174208 B2 (Kaga Sangyo, "Sim production method") as the shim approach to be improved — i.e., the problem was known and the improvement direction was known.
• Predictable results. Scanning a mating part and generating a compensating NC program is the routine, predictable union of well-known metrology and well-known CAM; nothing in the claim requires an unexpected technique. KSR ("combination of familiar elements according to known methods … likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results").
• Reasonable expectation of success. Embraer and Boeing both report success (gaps eliminated / "machined to fit without shims"), so the artisan would expect the combination to work in Subaru's six-component structure.

Combination II: Airbus US 2015/0367579 (virtual-model teaching) + Embraer or Boeing US 2014/0236334 (subtractive excess removal)

Airbus provides the cleanest teaching of limitations 1 and 2 (scan → compare meshes → compute gaps → merge to an adjusted model, expressly "adjusted to the geometry of the structure"). Its fabrication step is additive (laser powder deposition), so it does not by itself meet the "removal process" and "remove a part of the excess" limitations. Combining Airbus (for the model generation) with Embraer or with Boeing US 2014/0236334 (for pre-forming with thicker "sacrificial material" and then machining it to fit) yields the full claim.

Motivation: Both references are assigned to aircraft OEMs, both are directed to closing gaps in large aerostructures without shims, and the artisan seeking a shimless process would naturally pair a proven "measure-the-real-part-and-adjust-the-virtual-model" algorithm with a proven "leave overmaterial and machine it away" process — this is the textbook case of combining complementary sub-systems (a known technique from one reference applied to improve a known process in another). KSR; In re ICON Health & Fitness, 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Combination III: Boeing US 2014/0236334 + Boeing EP 3531221 A2 / US 10,739,128

These two Boeing references are the closest-knit pair — common assignee, overlapping disclosure, and EP 3531221 expressly names the claimed objective: one of ordinary skill "could then be used to generate a predictive shim ahead of time" or "this scan data could be used to produce shimless manufacturing by machining the second part to match the first part." US 2014/0236334 supplies the pre-formed "additional sacrificial material" (the claimed excess) and the "machined to fit without shims" removal step; EP 3531221 supplies the laser-scanner-on-CNC platform (scanning the first surface), the difference-from-design computation, and the modified-design-to-mate second part. Combining two references from a single assignee directed to the same objective, where one expressly states the other's result as its goal, is about as strong a motivation as § 103 recognizes.

Secondary references that reinforce (not required)

• US 10,450,053 B2 (Boeing, predictive shimming to optimize part-to-part alignment) — confirms that measuring a manufactured part's as-built geometry to derive the mating geometry was a known, well-trodden technique.
• US 5,106,290 / US 5,033,014 (Northrop, assembly data model tool system) — old but corroborative: a master 3D data model is used to machine tools/parts and to compare a tangible article against the model via coordinate measurement. It shows the "CAD model governs the machining" concept was decades old, undercutting any argument that the virtual-model limitation is itself inventive.
• US 5,751,584; US 2011/0246132; US 2014/0233839; US 2016/0224015; US 2018/0154489 — interference/NC-programming and machine-tool control references that reinforce the predictability of generating NC data from a model.

4. The likely point of novelty — and why it is still obvious

The prosecution record shows the application was allowed after a final rejection (see previously generated sections; Notice of Allowance 2022-01-12). The most plausible distinction the Applicant argued is a sequence/identity distinction: Embraer measures and machines the same part (or its mating part) on the milling jig, whereas claim 1 requires measuring a component manufactured prior to a distinct "component of interest," then generating the model of the component of interest.

That distinction does not save claim 1 under § 103:

1. It is expressly disclosed by the other references. Both Boeing US 2014/0236334 ("first component" scanned → "second component" part definition updated) and Boeing EP 3531221 (scan the first surface of a part → modify the design of the second part to mate) measure one, already-existing component and then machine the other, later component. That is exactly claim 1's sequence.
2. The claimed ordering is a design choice with no unexpected result. Subaru's own spec admits the order is arbitrary: "the order of manufacturing the components 110a to 110f is not limited to this … the components may be manufactured sequentially." A limitation the patentee concedes is a mere matter of production sequencing cannot render an otherwise-anticipated combination non-obvious.
3. "No gap exists" is a result, not a structure. The references achieve the same stated result (Embraer: "eliminate gaps … and the corresponding need for shims"; Boeing: "machined to fit without shims"). Where the claim's characterization is a functional result already achieved by the art, it does not confer patentability absent a showing of unexpected results (In re Best; In re Schreiber).

I flag this as the crux. If the Applicant's allowance rested on some narrower reading of "manufactured prior to" (e.g., measuring all previously built components and then machining a single final "assemblage reference" part as in the 110a–110e → 110f example), the combination argument is the same but the mapping should be checked against the full claim text of Embraer US 10,324,426 and Boeing US 9,213,786, which I retrieved only at the abstract/description level. See caveats, § 7.

5. Dependent claims

• Claim 2 (measure "in an attitude in assemblage"): The problem Subaru identifies — a part machined in one attitude deforms under its own weight when assembled in another attitude, causing model deviation — was already recognized in the art. Boeing US 10,739,128's predecessor family and the fuselage-join art cited of record (e.g., the metrology/cradle-join disclosures surfaced alongside the Boeing family) expressly address gravity/attitude-induced shape change of large parts, and scanning a part "in place" (as Airbus US 2015/0367579 does with its mobile robot inside the fuselage, and as Boeing's on-tool scanning does) inherently measures it in its assembly posture. Measuring the part where and how it will be assembled is the natural and obvious way to obtain a usable measurement, and the record shows the artisan already scanned parts in situ. Claim 2 therefore adds only a predictable measurement condition.
• Claims 3 and 4 (machining a workpiece from the machining data to manufacture the component of interest): These recite the ordinary function of the machining device already required by claim 1 and expressly disclosed by Embraer ("5 axis milling machine … overmaterial milling") and Boeing US 2014/0236334 (machine "to fit without shims"). As previously noted, claims 3/4 are drafted in a fragmentary, colon-introduced style that reads as a capability restatement; even construed as adding "machining a workpiece," they add nothing patentably distinct.

6. Objective indicia (secondary considerations) — brief assessment

Nothing in the record provided supports a finding of non-obviousness:

• No unexpected results are asserted; the patent claims only the expected benefit (no shims → fewer working steps, improved accuracy), which is the same benefit the cited art claims.
• No long-felt-but-unmet need specific to the claimed apparatus is demonstrated; the shim-elimination problem was being solved contemporaneously by Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer.
• No industry praise, licensing, or copying appears in the record. The family is small (US, JP, EP-withdrawn, CN), consistent with a defensive filing rather than a commercially differentiating, widely-licensed innovation.
• No nexus would attach in any event, because the alleged advantage flows from the prior-art concepts (measure-then-machine, overmaterial, shimless), not from any feature unique to the claims.

7. Caveats and limits (stated plainly)

• Sources: The full descriptions of US 2015/0367579 A1/US 9,827,716 B2, US 2018/0113425 A1, US 2014/0236334 A1/US 9,213,786 B2, EP 3531221 A2/US 10,739,128 B2, US 5,106,290, and EP 3293649 A1 were retrieved and quoted. I could not retrieve the full issued claim text of Embraer US 10,324,426 B2 or Boeing US 9,213,786 B2, nor the disclosure of JP 6174208 B2 (Kaga Sangyo) or US 10,450,053 B2, beyond the abstract/description snippets and the family-citation table from the patent page. Element mappings for those are therefore based on abstract/description, not claim language. The search tool limit was reached before I could close these gaps.
• Statutory note: Some of these references (Boeing US 9,213,786, US 10,739,128; Airbus US 9,827,716; Embraer US 10,324,426; US 5,106,290) are US patents/granted publications and are therefore available as § 102(a)(2)/102(a)(1) prior art for their entire disclosures. Embraer's US 10,324,426 B2 (granted 2019-06-18) and Boeing's US 10,739,128 B2 (granted 2020-08-11) have post-priority grant dates but pre-2018-11-26 priority/filing dates and would need to be analyzed as § 102(a)(2) art (published applications US 2018/0113425 and US 2019/0265021, both published before the Subaru filing date and thus available as § 102(a)(1) printed publications). I have treated the published applications as the operative references, which is the cleaner path.
• No anticipation finding is asserted here for claim 1 as printed; the request was § 103. However, Combination I approaches single-reference anticipation on the record retrieved, and a full-text pull of Embraer US 2018/0113425/US 10,324,426 and Boeing US 2014/0236334/US 9,213,786 should be run before finalizing — if any single reference contains all limitations arranged as claimed, § 102 would control rather than § 103.
• Claim construction dependencies: The conclusions above assume the printed defects are construed benignly ("no gap exists"; "measurement device" ≡ "measurement result acquiring unit"). If a court construed "excess" or "no gap exists" more narrowly (e.g., requiring the excess to be pre-machined in a preliminary step as in FIG. 3), the mapping to Embraer (which does pre-mill with overmaterial) still holds; the mapping to Boeing US 2014/0236334 (design-stage sacrificial material) may need the "preliminary machining may be omitted" admission in Subaru's spec, which itself cuts against narrow construction.

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is obvious under § 103 over Embraer US 2018/0113425 in view of Boeing US 2014/0236334 (and/or EP 3531221), and alternatively over Airbus US 2015/0367579 in view of Embraer or Boeing US 2014/0236334. All limitations — prior-manufactured-part measurement, gap-free virtual model of the component of interest, NC-data generation, subtractive machining, and the pre-formed "excess" that is trimmed — appear in the record, with motivations stated in the references themselves (shim elimination) and a reasonable expectation of success reported by the references.
• Claim 2 is obvious as an in-situ measurement condition the art already practiced.
• Claims 3 and 4 are obvious as restatements of the machining device's ordinary operation.
• The only meaningful potential distinction — measuring a previously built part and then machining a different "component of interest" — is squarely met by Boeing US 2014/0236334 and EP 3531221, and the ordering it relies on is conceded by Subaru's own specification to be arbitrary.

Recommended next steps: (1) pull full claim text of Embraer US 10,324,426 B2 and Boeing US 9,213,786 B2 to test single-reference § 102; (2) pull JP 6174208 B2 (Kaga Sangyo) to confirm the admitted shim background; (3) confirm the actual examiner-cited/considered art and any Applicant remarks in the file wrapper (Sato et al., app. 16/655,942) to identify the precise distinction that overcame the final rejection — that distinction is where any § 103 attack must be aimed.