DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed on Dec. 9th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-22, 37-38, 41-45 have been presented for examination.
Title is objected to
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-22, 37-38, 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10-14, 18-22, 37, 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Siemens, “World-class finite element analysis (FEA) solution for the Windows desktop”, copyright 2008, URL: www(dot)plm(dot)automation(dot)siemens(dot)com/en_gb/Images/fe%20finite%20element%20analysis%20for%20windows%20fs%20W%205_tcm642-53789(dot)pdf in further view of AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0 and in further view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012
Claims 7-8, 15-16, 38, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Siemens, “World-class finite element analysis (FEA) solution for the Windows desktop”, copyright 2008, URL: www(dot)plm(dot)automation(dot)siemens(dot)com/en_gb/Images/fe%20finite%20element%20analysis%20for%20windows%20fs%20W%205_tcm642-53789(dot)pdf in further view of AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0 and in further view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012 in further view of Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, 2015
Claims 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Siemens, “World-class finite element analysis (FEA) solution for the Windows desktop”, copyright 2008, URL: www(dot)plm(dot)automation(dot)siemens(dot)com/en_gb/Images/fe%20finite%20element%20analysis%20for%20windows%20fs%20W%205_tcm642-53789(dot)pdf in further view of AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0 and in further view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012 in further view of Fujita et al., US 5,487,021
This action is Final
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the NSDP Rejection
Withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained.
With respect to the prong 1 and prong 2 remarks, see Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as was cited in the action, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
At issue with these present claims is a litany of purely desired result limitations akin the desired result of IV, i.e. providing/creating a representation [dynamic document in IV; “a representation” in the present claims] that allows for modifications/changes to be propagated from the representation of data in incompatible data formats [underlying XML documents with “stated incompatibility problems with XML documents” per IV; the modeling operations in the present claims, recited at most in particularly for what generic operation they are and what the desired result in geometry from the performance of the modification is to provide] without any recitation in the claim itself about “what steps are [**1948] undertaken to overcome the stated incompatibility problems with XML documents [in this case, the mesh data and classic geometry representation] to propagate those modifications into the XML document [the mesh data and the classic geometry representation]”.
The only disclosed manner of actually attempting to do this is a math concept solving a math problem. Appeal 2024-000206 for its res judicata effect on this consideration. And this feature is expressly not recited in these independent claims. Should it be expressed, such as it is in the divisional application of this application, see the most current rejection in the divisional application for how it would be rejected.
To further clarify, these remarks focus on the “using both mesh data and classic geometry data without converting the faceted model to a surface representation during certain processing acts” – which is a similar problem to IV: “the previous problem of the incompatibility of XML documents with different 'XML syntax[es]' and different 'XML formats…” solved by expressing the stated goal itself, i.e. “Although the claims purport to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, this merely reiterates the patent's stated goal itself. Nothing in the claims indicate what steps are [**1948] undertaken to overcome the stated incompatibility problems with XML documents to propagate those modifications into the XML document.”
What is missing in these claims is a particular manner in which the particular data structures themselves are to be manipulated to accomplish this desired result. See the discussion of Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868-69, 97 USPQ2d 1274, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) in MPEP § 2106.05(a) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) to see what is actually missing in these claims, i.e. the how the changes are propagated in a manner the addresses technologically the issues with the incompatibilities in the data structures of mesh data and B-rep data (the Examiner further noting the claim is so broad it does not even require B-rep data, but rather “a classic geometric representation”, e.g. “exact geometry” (¶ 56), e.g. a simple math equations/set of equations representing a cylinder for the “hole”, with a value of a variable for the radius, e.g. “C = 2 (pi) r” (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
With respect to the 2B remarks, these remarks point to almost the entire claim as being something more. That is not the legal test. MPEP § 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).”
Furthermore, these remarks do not particularly address the WURC evidence that was of record, i.e. it’s merely conclusory without addressing WURC evidence of record.
To clarify, MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I): “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:… vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and”
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Maintained.
With respect to the remarks regarding the combination of prior art relied upon and the rationale, these remarks are a piecemeal analysis of Matt and AutoCAD2k10 alone without addressing the particular combination and underlying rationale for how the combination would have rendered this claim obvious.
To clarify, Liepa was relied upon in said combination for teaching the ability to do modeling operations on the original input models, which causes the combined representation to “update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input)” (Liepa, ¶ 60 and elsewhere as particularly cited in the rejection; e.g. see the rejection with Siemens on page 52, including for offsetting); for the rationale stated in the office action, wherein Liepa in view of Siemens did not teach the particular geometry to apply the offsetting operation of Liepa and Siemens to (the one recited in the claim), but performing such an offsetting operation in this manner on B-rep data is taught by AutoCAD2k10 (note in combination this would be with the manner of doing modifications of Leipa; the claim is merely specifying what operation is to be performed, and the desired geometry resulting from it), wherein AutoCAD2k10 does not teach performing the offset operation on mesh data, but Matt teaches a similar such usage of the offset operation on B-rep data, and then see the comment by Kevin Quigley as was cited to: “Cadjunkie has a great demo video of tysElements where he models a toy car in Modo and shows this offset mesh trick into SolidWorks via TsElements [mesh elements]... This is why I think the future is a combination of mesh and nurbs [e.g. Leipa]."
POSITA would have at least been suggested by this combination of prior art to arrive at the presently claimed combination for the rationales stated in the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-22, 37-38, 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 19 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 22 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Claims 19 and 22, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept. The independent claims recite a mental process, and some of the dependent claims add a math concept.
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes the following:
MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).”
In particular, note in the opinion of Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp: “…IV next submits that the specific combination of PRTs, MRTs, and a dynamic document overcomes the previous problem of the "incompatibility of XML documents with different 'XML syntax[es]' and different 'XML formats, relational database schemes, and messages formats.'" Appellants' Br. 40 (citing J.A. 168, 1388). In particular, IV argues that the claims set forth a unique solution to a problem with contemporary XML documents. Id. at 45. But the claims do not recite particular features to yield these advantages. Although the claims purport to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, this merely reiterates the patent's stated goal itself. Nothing in the claims indicate what steps are [**1948] undertaken to overcome the stated incompatibility problems with XML documents to propagate those modifications into the XML document. Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")…” – the Examiner is noting this case because of the similarity in what is claimed in the instant claims, in the context of CAD/CAE systems, wherein a similar idea was found to be abstract in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp in the context of XML documents.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
providing a representation of the product including the selected of the at least one first part and the selected of the at least one second part; - a mental process, such as a person observing on the display of a computer, or on a print-out from a computer (e.g. fig. 7-8), or on pen-and-paper drawings, graphical depictions of the selected parts, and mentally visualizing them together. This would be akin to the mental process performed by a mechanic or engineer faced with the task of trying to determine whether a new part (e.g. a bolt), such as in a part catalog, would work with an existing design so they mentally visualize, in their own mind, the bolt combined with the existing design (e.g. a door hinge, a bike, etc.), so as to mentally observe the product, wherein such observation would used for a mental judgement as to whether or nor the bolt will work with the new design.
To clarify, the claim recites with no particularity how this representation is to be provided, or what this representation is.
wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in a boundary representation model and the boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation… wherein the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data are attached to the boundary representation model – a mental process, given the generality recited, but for the mere instructions to do this on a computer. For example, a person would readily be able to observe, such as on a display of a computer, printouts from a computer, or the like, a visual representation of mesh data and a visual representation of a B-rep model (e.g. instant fig. 7, or a much simpler model, and mentally visualize the mesh as a surface in the B-rep model. One would readily be able to use physical aids in this process, e.g. use paper, and print out the B-rep model (fig. 7 # 15), and then print-out, on a sheet of translucent paper, the mesh (fig. 7, # 16), and then achieve this limitation by aligning the translucent paper laid on top of the paper representation of the B-rep model, thus combining the two and resulting in fig. 7.
To clarify, the claim does not recite how this step is accomplished in a particular manner that would preclude this from being a mental process, but for mere instructions to do this on a computer. Furthermore, the claim does not recite with any particularity what the product is, i.e. this may readily be applied to a much simpler product with much simpler parts, e.g. a product such as two LegoTM bricks, wherein one brick is in the first format and the other brick is in the second format, wherein a person would readily be able to mentally visualize in their own mind these two bricks together with both formats (i.e. visualizing one as a simple, coarse mesh with a few elements, and the other by a classic geometry representation, e.g. lines), or use physical aids such as discussed above.
modelling the at least one second part in the second format comprising interior geometry of the part on an inside of the inner wall of the product – a mental process, but done in a computer/computer environment. To clarify, the second format is a “classic geometric representation” – a person is readily able to model a product in such a “classic geometric representation” (¶¶ 62 and 68, e.g. in 62 note “analytic cones and cylinders”) wherein a person can readily mentally visualize such shapes, or use simple equations on pen and paper to create a design with such shapes, e.g. writing out the simple set of equations to define the shape of a cylinder, and/or cone, in an x-y-z coordinate system (e.g. equations such as ones that define the volume of the cylinder by its radius/diameter and height, etc.), including having variables to represent positioning in a simple cartesian coordinate system. Pen, paper, and/or a calculator would readily be a useful aid in this mental process, e.g. drawing out 2D perspectives of the 3D coordinate system with shapes on graphing paper (e.g. using a compass and other physical aids for dimensional accuracy), and then the person mentally visualizing the resulting 3D model in their own mind.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
Furthermore, in view of MPEP 2106.06, the Examiner notes that the instant disclosure has already been subject to an improvement consideration in Appeal 2024-000206 (pages 6 ¶ 1 and 12 ¶ 1), wherein it was found that “The Examiner adds that "the alleged improvement is to address 'a problem as facet meshes cannot be parameterized in the same way as a boundary representation model,"' and "[t]his is a problem in the mathematical concepts of meshes and B-rep [boundary representation] models." Id. at 5… Appellant also contends that "the specification discloses an improvement in technology," namely "a technical problem that arises in the use of a CAD system employing a boundary representation model." Appeal Br. 5. This technical solution is, according to Appellant, "providing a modified parameterization of the facet mesh data that can be used in the boundary representation model." Id. at 6 ( emphasis omitted). Appellant points to each of the limitations of claim 23 (but not the preamble) as "reflect[ing] the disclosed improvement in the specification." Id. at 6. We do not agree that the extracting and deriving steps recite an improvement to technology because, as correctly found by the Examiner, "the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement." Ans. 9 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, "no matter how groundbreaking the advance.").”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Claim 1- A computer-implemented method of optimizing a model of a product for additive manufacturing using data in different data processing formats, the method performed on a data processing system, the method comprising: - mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, with an intended use recitations, wherein claims 19 and 22 recite similar limitations that are rejected under a similar rationale
applying a modelling operation to one or more of the selected first and second parts;… … wherein offsetting, shelling, or thickening operations and detailing is applied directly to the mesh data without any conversion of the faceted model to a surface representation, and wherein the offsetting is applied directly to the mesh data that represents an outer wall of the product in the boundary representation model, and wherein a result of applying the offsetting comprises the mesh data forming an inner wall of the product in the boundary representation model; …and modelling operations are applied in the form in which the data is held without any change to the first format in which the one or more first parts is originally represented or to the second format in which the one or more second parts is originally represented such that modifications to the selected at least one first part of the representation of the product are in the same first format in which the first data of the one or more first parts is originally generated and modifications to the selected at least one second part of the representation of the product are in the same second format in which the second data of the one or more second parts is originally generated. – these are akin to MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…” as was discussed above, include seeing in the opinion: “IV maintains that because the invention relates to a specialized computer language—XML—and renders otherwise incompatible documents compatible through a unique dynamic document based on MRTs and PRTs … IV's characterization, however, does not change the result… IV's identification of the '081 patent 's specific data structures and objects (PRTs and MRTs) also does not change our analysis under this step. In particular, IV argues that the '081 patent creates these specific data structures to interrelate various XML documents in a particular way to ensure compatibility of otherwise incompatible documents. IV maintains that these structures provide a concrete solution through a component that detects modifications to the dynamic document and in response thereto, propagates those changes back to the underlying XML document. We disagree… Although these data structures add a degree of particularity to the claims, the underlying concept embodied by the limitations merely encompasses the abstract idea itself of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents… The PRTs and MRTs are, at bottom, broadly [***8] defined labels for generic data types that transfer data from one type of electronic document to another—here, the so-called dynamic document. The resulting dynamic document, in turn, is nothing more than an interface for displaying and organizing this [**1947] underlying data. These features, therefore, do not alter our conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents…The claims, according to IV, specify how to manage and modify XML documents of varying formats and syntax in a way that departed from convention. It argues that the patent accomplishes this by creating a "dynamic document" based upon the MRTs and PRTs, so the system can modify multiple sets of XML data components at once through a user interface… Indeed, as the district court observed, IV set forth particular definitions for these terms that describe them as generic data structures… IV next submits that the specific combination of PRTs, MRTs, and a dynamic document overcomes the previous problem of the "incompatibility of XML documents with different 'XML syntax[es]' and different 'XML formats, relational database schemes, and messages formats.'"… Although the claims purport to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, this merely reiterates the patent's stated goal itself. Nothing in the claims indicate what steps are [**1948] undertaken to overcome the stated incompatibility problems with XML documents to propagate those modifications into the XML document. Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem").”
To clarify, see ¶ 75: “As can be understood from the embodiments of this disclosure performance improvements may be achieved by avoiding conversion between formats, whilst maintaining design intent. The various portions of the model can be represented in their natural formats and edited using the appropriate tools.” And ¶ 14: “Modifications may be applied to any of the parts of the product, but the modifications are made to representations in the same format as the representation was originally generated” and ¶ 65: “If modifications are required 56, the designer determines which part and what format of data is available for that part (mesh or classic geometry) and the designer works 57 on each part in need of modification in the format in which that data is held.” And ¶ 66: “Modifications to the meshes can be made using downstream functions in the model which are able to operate on faceted models. Modifications to the classic geometry features are carried out using downstream functions which are compatible with classic geometry models because the different data formats are modelled separately.” And ¶ 61: “Using a conventional CAD model, the workflow described above requires conversion of the outer shape to a curved-surface model before proceeding, because current modelling operations, such as offsetting and Booleans, do not work on a mixture of facets and classic surfaces” – i.e. neither the claims nor the specification provide any details on how the computer implements the modifications to achieve the claimed result, akin to “…Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,…Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))” As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and above
In addition, should it be found that the recitations of “wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in a boundary representation model and the boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation… wherein the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data are attached to the boundary representation model” are not part of the abstract idea, then the Examiner submits these would be rejected under a similar rationale as discussed in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp, specifically these recitations being akin to the discussion of the “dynamic document” (i.e. “The resulting dynamic document, in turn, is nothing more than an interface for displaying and organizing this [**1947] underlying data”) and its features.
Furthermore, should it be considered that the recitations of “treated as a surface” is the how the alleged improvement is provided, then the Examiner notes for the consideration ¶¶ 58, and 78-84 in the instant disclosure, and the decision in Appeal 2024-000206 with respect to the instant disclosed invention, as well as instant claim 44, i.e. the feature that is disclosed to allegedly provide this improvement is not required by the scope of the independent claims, as demonstrated by the recitation of the subject matter in dependent claim 44.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
in the data processing system, deriving a first data relating to one or more first parts of the product in a first format; in the data processing system, deriving a second data relating to one or more second parts of the product in a second format; wherein the first format comprises mesh data and wherein the second format comprises a classic geometric representation; - mere data gathering
in the data processing system, receiving instructions of a first selection of at least one of the first parts of the product comprising mesh data; in the data processing system, receiving instructions of a second selection of at least one of the second parts of the product comprising classic geometric representation data; - mere data gathering
storing the mesh data of the first format as a collection of facets forming a faceted model, wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in a boundary representation model and the boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation; - mere data storage
The “applying” of the modelling operations in the manner claimed are also considered insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering with activities involved in the mere data gathering
and modelling the at least one second part in the second format comprising interior geometry of the part on an inside of the inner wall of the product - should it be construed that second format is solely limited to a B-rep format (¶ 54) although this is not expressly recited as what the classic geometric representation is limited to, then it would be considered as merely doing such a mental process as discussed above but in a computer environment by generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment with a particular data format. Should it be found that this step is not part of the abstract idea at all, then the Examiner submits that this would be an insignificant extra-solution activity that is nominally/tangentially linked to the primary process of this claimed invention (i.e. the providing of the representation), as well as generally linking to a particular technological environment/field of use by merely specifying the geometry of the product to be modelled, but adding nothing significant to the process of providing a representation.
and wherein the offsetting is applied directly to the mesh data that represents an outer wall of the product in the boundary representation model, and wherein a result of applying the offsetting comprises the mesh data forming an inner wall of the product in the boundary representation model; - this is also considered as a tangential insignificant extra-solution activity, as well as generally linking to a particular technological environment/field of use by merely specifying the geometry of the product to be modelled
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Claim 1- A computer-implemented method of optimizing a model of a product for additive manufacturing using data in different data processing formats, the method performed on a data processing system, the method comprising: - mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, with an intended use recitations, wherein claims 19 and 22 recite similar limitations that are rejected under a similar rationale
applying a modelling operation to one or more of the selected first and second parts;… … wherein offsetting, shelling, or thickening operations and detailing is applied directly to the mesh data without any conversion of the faceted model to a surface representation, and wherein the offsetting is applied directly to the mesh data that represents an outer wall of the product in the boundary representation model, and wherein a result of applying the offsetting comprises the mesh data forming an inner wall of the product in the boundary representation model; …and modelling operations are applied in the form in which the data is held without any change to the first format in which the one or more first parts is originally represented or to the second format in which the one or more second parts is originally represented such that modifications to the selected at least one first part of the representation of the product are in the same first format in which the first data of the one or more first parts is originally generated and modifications to the selected at least one second part of the representation of the product are in the same second format in which the second data of the one or more second parts is originally generated. – these are akin to MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…” as was discussed above, include seeing in the opinion: “IV maintains that because the invention relates to a specialized computer language—XML—and renders otherwise incompatible documents compatible through a unique dynamic document based on MRTs and PRTs … IV's characterization, however, does not change the result… IV's identification of the '081 patent 's specific data structures and objects (PRTs and MRTs) also does not change our analysis under this step. In particular, IV argues that the '081 patent creates these specific data structures to interrelate various XML documents in a particular way to ensure compatibility of otherwise incompatible documents. IV maintains that these structures provide a concrete solution through a component that detects modifications to the dynamic document and in response thereto, propagates those changes back to the underlying XML document. We disagree… Although these data structures add a degree of particularity to the claims, the underlying concept embodied by the limitations merely encompasses the abstract idea itself of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents… The PRTs and MRTs are, at bottom, broadly [***8] defined labels for generic data types that transfer data from one type of electronic document to another—here, the so-called dynamic document. The resulting dynamic document, in turn, is nothing more than an interface for displaying and organizing this [**1947] underlying data. These features, therefore, do not alter our conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents…The claims, according to IV, specify how to manage and modify XML documents of varying formats and syntax in a way that departed from convention. It argues that the patent accomplishes this by creating a "dynamic document" based upon the MRTs and PRTs, so the system can modify multiple sets of XML data components at once through a user interface… Indeed, as the district court observed, IV set forth particular definitions for these terms that describe them as generic data structures… IV next submits that the specific combination of PRTs, MRTs, and a dynamic document overcomes the previous problem of the "incompatibility of XML documents with different 'XML syntax[es]' and different 'XML formats, relational database schemes, and messages formats.'"… Although the claims purport to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, this merely reiterates the patent's stated goal itself. Nothing in the claims indicate what steps are [**1948] undertaken to overcome the stated incompatibility problems with XML documents to propagate those modifications into the XML document. Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem").”
To clarify, see ¶ 75: “As can be understood from the embodiments of this disclosure performance improvements may be achieved by avoiding conversion between formats, whilst maintaining design intent. The various portions of the model can be represented in their natural formats and edited using the appropriate tools.” And ¶ 14: “Modifications may be applied to any of the parts of the product, but the modifications are made to representations in the same format as the representation was originally generated” and ¶ 65: “If modifications are required 56, the designer determines which part and what format of data is available for that part (mesh or classic geometry) and the designer works 57 on each part in need of modification in the format in which that data is held.” And ¶ 66: “Modifications to the meshes can be made using downstream functions in the model which are able to operate on faceted models. Modifications to the classic geometry features are carried out using downstream functions which are compatible with classic geometry models because the different data formats are modelled separately.” And ¶ 61: “Using a conventional CAD model, the workflow described above requires conversion of the outer shape to a curved-surface model before proceeding, because current modelling operations, such as offsetting and Booleans, do not work on a mixture of facets and classic surfaces” – i.e. neither the claims nor the specification provide any details on how the computer implements the modifications to achieve the claimed result, akin to “…Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,…Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))” As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and above
In addition, should it be found that the recitations of “wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in a boundary representation model and the boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation… wherein the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data are attached to the boundary representation model” are not part of the abstract idea, then the Examiner submits these would be rejected under a similar rationale as discussed in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp, specifically these recitations being akin to the discussion of the “dynamic document” (i.e. “The resulting dynamic document, in turn, is nothing more than an interface for displaying and organizing this [**1947] underlying data”) and its features.
Furthermore, should it be considered that the recitations of “treated as a surface” is the how the alleged improvement is provided, then the Examiner notes for the consideration ¶¶ 58, and 78-84 in the instant disclosure, and the decision in Appeal 2024-000206 with respect to the instant disclosed invention, as well as instant claim 44, i.e. the feature that is disclosed to allegedly provide this improvement is not required by the scope of the independent claims, as demonstrated by the recitation of the subject matter in dependent claim 44.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
in the data processing system, deriving a first data relating to one or more first parts of the product in a first format; in the data processing system, deriving a second data relating to one or more second parts of the product in a second format; wherein the first format comprises mesh data and wherein the second format comprises a classic geometric representation; - mere data gathering
in the data processing system, receiving instructions of a first selection of at least one of the first parts of the product comprising mesh data; in the data processing system, receiving instructions of a second selection of at least one of the second parts of the product comprising classic geometric representation data; - mere data gathering
storing the mesh data of the first format as a collection of facets forming a faceted model, wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in a boundary representation model and the boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation; - mere data storage
The “applying” of the modelling operations in the manner claimed are also considered insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering with activities involved in the mere data gathering
and modelling the at least one second part in the second format comprising interior geometry of the part on an inside of the inner wall of the product - should it be construed that second format is solely limited to a B-rep format (¶ 54) although this is not expressly recited as what the classic geometric representation is limited to, then it would be considered as merely doing such a mental process as discussed above but in a computer environment by generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment with a particular data format. Should it be found that this step is not part of the abstract idea at all, then the Examiner submits that this would be an insignificant extra-solution activity that is nominally/tangentially linked to the primary process of this claimed invention (i.e. the providing of the representation), as well as generally linking to a particular technological environment/field of use by merely specifying the geometry of the product to be modelled, but adding nothing significant to the process of providing a representation.
and wherein the offsetting is applied directly to the mesh data that represents an outer wall of the product in the boundary representation model, and wherein a result of applying the offsetting comprises the mesh data forming an inner wall of the product in the boundary representation model; - this is also considered as a tangential insignificant extra-solution activity, as well as generally linking to a particular technological environment/field of use by merely specifying the geometry of the product to be modelled
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
applying a modelling operation to one or more of the selected first and second parts;… and wherein offsetting, shelling, or thickening operations and detailing is applied directly to the mesh data… - applying such operations is considered WURC in view of Siemens, "Parasolid: The world's leading production-proven modeling kernel", copyright 2011, page 7: “Parasolid delivers a range of methods that enable CAD users to create thin-walled parts using simple inputs, including: • Thickening of sheet models • Hollowing of solid models • General offsetting Each of these methods provides powerful functionality, including automatic self-intersection removal and together form a comprehensive suite of tools that accelerate the design of plastic moldings, castings, pressings and panels.” And page 8: “Model simplification”: “Parasolid can be used to identify and remove model details, including holes, blends and arbitrary faces to support downstream operations – such as finite element analysis and CAM – where certain model details can be safely ignored…”
in the data processing system, deriving a first data relating to one or more first parts of the product in a first format; in the data processing system, deriving a second data relating to one or more second parts of the product in a second format; wherein the first format comprises mesh data and wherein the second format comprises a classic geometric representation; - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; additionally, see the instant disclosure, ¶¶ 56, 60-61, 68. Also see Owen et al., “FACET-BASED SURFACES FOR 3D MESH GENERATION”, § 1: “Computational simulations of physical processes modeled using finite element analysis frequently employ complex automatic mesh generation techniques… Solid models or boundary representation (b-rep) models are most frequently employed, typically provided through a commercial computer aided design (CAD) package or third party library…In recent years, facetted models have become more important as an alternative geometry representation from NURBS representations. Complete 3D geometric models can be represented as a simply connected set of triangles. In many cases, facetted models may be preferred or may be the only representation available” and see §§ 2.2-2.4
in the data processing system, receiving instructions of a first selection of at least one of the first parts of the product comprising mesh data; in the data processing system, receiving instructions of a second selection of at least one of the second parts of the product comprising classic geometric representation data; - - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;… i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”, also see Siemens, "Parasolid: The world's leading production-proven modeling kernel", copyright 2011, page 7: “…Direct modeling is an extremely powerful editing capability that allows regions of a model to be manipulated and/or replaced; it is particularly useful when applications need to make complex model adjustments independent of any model history….”, additionally, see the instant disclosure, ¶¶ 56, 60-61, 68
and storing the mesh data of the first format as a collection of facets, wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in a boundary representation model and the boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation; - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
To further clarify, the Examiner notes the a “collection of facets” as recited in this claim is not a particular data structure, but rather a mathematical construct of geometry. See ¶ 22: “the mesh data representation comprising a plurality of triangles each representing a facet”, ¶¶ 53, 55-56, 83-84, including in ¶ 53: “A vertex represents a point in space….A facet is a triangular region of a plane. A mesh is a connected collection of facets.” – i.e. a collection of connected triangles on a plane, described by the trigonometric mathematical relationships (see Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)) between the “three vertices” [i.e. the corners] (¶ 83) of each triangle – i.e. this limitation is simply storing data that is mathematical in nature, with no particular technological data structure (e.g. using XML) for how it is stored
In addition, storing mesh data as a collection of facets is WURC – see ¶¶ 55-57 and 61, including in ¶ 61: “The full conventional process is illustrated graphically… Thus, the exterior surface 15 of the shell 10 is naturally represented by facets…”, also see Owen et al., “FACET-BASED SURFACES FOR 3D MESH GENERATION”, § 1 ¶ 3: “In recent years, facetted models have become more important as an alternative geometry representation from NURBS representations. Complete 3D geometric models can be represented as a simply connected set of triangles. In many cases, facetted models may be preferred or may be the only representation available” and § 3: “…The method used to store and evaluate the facet data can vary according to the source of those data…”
With respect to the offsetting operations and use in the particular manner claimed to generate an inner surface from an outer surface, such a technique is WURC in the art:
WURC in view of ¶ 61
Siemens, "Parasolid: The world's leading production-proven modeling kernel", copyright 2011, page 7: “Parasolid delivers a range of methods that enable CAD users to create thin-walled parts using simple inputs, including: • Thickening of sheet models • Hollowing of solid models • General offsetting Each of these methods provides powerful functionality, including automatic self-intersection removal and together form a comprehensive suite of tools that accelerate the design of plastic moldings, castings, pressings and panels.” And page 8: “Model simplification”: “Parasolid can be used to identify and remove model details, including holes, blends and arbitrary faces to support downstream operations – such as finite element analysis and CAM – where certain model details can be safely ignored…”
See Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, Jan. 2012, “And then finally, we get to stuff like what is shown on the right. This was scanned in, and then the point cloud was surfaced over badly, and my job was to shell it. Obviously, shell the Shell feature didn’t work for this. This Shell was shelled manually by offsetting the outer shell surface to the inside, trimming out some undercuts, then creating a solid from the original, offsetting a sketch to the inside of the back of the solid block, and cutting up to the offset and trimmed surface. Ugly, and certainly not exact, but it worked, and they are casting parts now.” In addition, also note the comment by Kevin Quigley on Jan. 11th, 2012: “Cadjunkie has a great demo video of tysElements where he models a toy car in Modo and shows this offset mesh trick into SolidWorks via TsElements… This is why I think the future is a combination of mesh and nurbs” – such a “trick” is WURC to POSITAs in the art.
Skills Factory, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2015 – 3D Surfaces and Mesh Objects [Complete]*”, Sept. 2nd, 2014, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=hjEkP13KvIg – see the video and transcript for: “4:29 - The Offset command can create copies of your surface very fast. Just select 4:37 - the surface interested, and define the direction using your Up and Down 4:43 - Arrow keys in the dialog box and using Flip Direction or Both Sides.”
AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0 – “3:00 - context as in this example this 3:02 - motorcycle was modeled 100% inside 3:05 - AutoCAD using mesh and solids another 3:08 - section will show that the converted 3:10 - mesh can allow any of the solid 3:12 - operations like in this case 3:14 - shell within a few hours a proficient 3:17 - user can come up with a model like this 3:20 - which would have taken an important 3:22 - amount of time before or would have just 3:24 - been impossible to create in 3:28 - alet for for a better visualization of” – see the demonstration in the video for clarification at this time frame
Mufasu CAD, YouTube Video: “Understanding AutoCAD Shell Command”, May 9th, 2014, URL: youtube.com/watch?v=qCr-PihAUe8 -see 40 seconds to 1:12 which shows the shelling command to shell a solid object’s outer boundary and create an inner wall, in particular note at 1:04 it is “Enter the shell offset distance”. A similar task is performed with another object around 2:47, wherein 2:47 also shows “Enter the shell offset distance”. See the demonstration in the video for clarification at this time frame
Kurland, AutoCAD 2013 3D Tutorials, 2012 copyright, URL: www(dot)andrew(dot)cmu(dot)edu/course/48-568/PDFs/3D_AutoCAD(dot)pdf – see §§ 8.2-8.3; § 10.1, then see § 11.14 on page 120, include seeing its figures, note the visible mesh in the top-most figure.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 4 is akin to the similar limitations discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…” as was discussed above, as well as being an insignificant extra-solution activity that is nominally/tangentially linked to the primary process of the claimed invention, wherein this is considered WURC in view of Siemens, "Parasolid: The world's leading production-proven modeling kernel", copyright 2011, page 7, “Modeling operators”: “Powerful hybrid modeling operators enable users to create and edit new models by uniting, subtracting or intersecting any combination of wire, sheet and solid bodies. The suite of Boolean-based operations includes…”, also see page 8 for the “Sheet modeling” description
Claim 5 is akin to the similar limitations discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…” as was discussed above
Claims 7-8 are insignificant extra-solution activities of mere data gathering which are WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory… v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document…”; in addition see ¶ 61 of the instant specification
Claim 10 is an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering which is WURC in view of ¶ 54 of the instant disclosure. Also see Pan et al., “Computer-aided design-while-engineering technology in top-down modeling of mechanical product”, 2016, § 1, ¶ 2 including: “…With the development of the technique in modern CAD and CAE system, simulation activities are integrated with the CAD modeling environment in several high-end commercial CAD software, i.e., NX software and Dassault system. For instance, the two activities in NX software may be performed in distinct application module but unified software environment” – also, see §§ 2.1-2.3, and § 3 inclduing: “With the rapid development of the technique in modern CAD/E software, it is currently becoming a trend for commercial CAD/E suppliers to offer complete solutions for the industry. In several high-end commercial CAD platforms, such as Siemens NX system and Dassault System, it has been implemented that simulation activities are integrated with not neutral data file but CAD modeling environment. Thus, it is allowed for designers to carry out the geometric modeling and the automatic mesh generation within one software environment.”
Claim 11 recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering that is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for the independent claims, followed by “applying…” steps rejected under a similar rationale as the applying step in claim 1, followed by a mental step of “providing a modification…”, e.g. a designer or an engineer mentally visualizing a design change to a product, but for the mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement this step
Claims 12-13 are rejected under a similar rationale as the applying step of the independent claims
Claim 14 is an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage that is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for the data storage steps of the independent claims
Claim 15 recites a mental step of “extracting a third data…”, e.g. the designer having mentally visualized the representation, and then mentally evaluates/judges based on a mental observation of the mental visualization, followed by mere instructions to “apply it” by the recitation of the “generating manufacturing instructions…” as this is a result-oriented limitation with no restriction on how the generation is performed, this step is also considered as an insignificant token post-solution activity that is an insignificant application and is also nominally/tangentially linked to the primary process of the claimed invention (as its only link is that its for the “product”), wherein this is WURC in view of the instant disclosure, ¶ 60; also see Arisoy et al., “DESIGN AND TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION OF LATTICE STRUCTURES USING DEFORMABLE IMPLICIT SURFACES FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING”, 2015, abstract and § 1; as well as Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, abstract and § 1
Also, see AutoCAD2k10, Youtube Video: “3d printing (AutoCAD 2010)”, Mar. 17th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=Om3pCkRqid4 – AutoCAD software, in view of this evidence and the other YouTube videos produced above, had many of the modeling features presently claimed, e.g. in this video: “0:00 - 3D printing functionality is integrated 0:02 - into AutoCAD 2010 with dramatically 0:04 - improved output for stereo lithography 0:07 - files and easy access to 3D printing 0:10 - services produce STL files using the 0:13 - traditional STL out or export commands 0:15 - as well as the new 3D print command all 0:18 - of these methods for producing STL files”
Siemens, “Parasolid”, 2011 – see page 10, ¶ 4: “Manufacturing. Parasolid delivers comprehensive modeling capabilities for tapering, blending, thickening, outlining and identification that support a wide range of manufacturing processes, including 3D machining, molding, casting, turning and numerical control (NC) toolpath generation. Parasolid also is an ideal platform for exchanging solid models across manufacturing supply chains, including sharing models with bundled CNC and inspection/metrology applications.“ as well as page 3, ¶ 2; page 5 ¶ 1; page 6, ¶ 2; also see previously cited Besl et al., “Hybrid Modeling for Manufacturing using NURBS, Polygons, and 3D Scanner Data”, 1998 abstract, and § 1 including ¶ 1.
Claim 16 is generally linking to a field of use/technological environment, as well as being part of the mere instructions to “apply it” and the insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed above for claim 15, wherein this is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for claim 15
Claim 17 recites another mental step akin to the one discussed above for claim 15, followed by an additional mental process of a mental observation/evaluation/judgement, e.g. an engineer observing parts of a product, and mentally evaluating/judging the fit and/or clearance and mass of the product. Such a mental process may readily be aided by pen, paper, a calculator, and other physical aids (e.g. a ruler), e.g. making a table of parts of the product and their dimensions (e.g. for a simple product like a door hinge, or a chair), and then observing the part so as to evaluate the fit and/or clearance, e.g. by taking measurements with a ruler, or if the product is still not built making simple calculations using pen, paper, and a calculator using the dimensional information of the parts of the product (e.g. from their own designs) and dimensional information of the product (e.g. from drawings of the product, or a mental visualization of a simple product, e.g. a door knob), wherein this would readily be able to include the mass properties as well, e.g. observing the weight/mass of each part of the product, tabulating it on paper, and summing, such as with a calculator, the masses/weights to determine the mass/weight of the product
Claim 18 recites another mental step akin to the ones in claims 15 and 17, followed by a mental step of the “generating an image for display”, e.g. the person drawing on pen and paper, and an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/transmission that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
Should it be found that the generating an image for display is not part of the abstract idea, then it would be rejected as an insignificant additional element that is nominally/tangentially linked to the primary process of the claimed invention and akin to “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g), and WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” and Oct. 2019 PEG Appendix 1 page 35: “Similarly, limitation (c) is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and displaying data is also well-known.”
The limitation of “generating the image for display and exporting the sixth data” is rejected under a similar rationale as the recitations of these in the alternative form.
Claim 20 is an insignificant additional element that is nominally/tangentially linked to the primary process of the claimed invention and akin to “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g), and WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” and Oct. 2019 PEG Appendix 1 page 35: “Similarly, limitation (c) is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and displaying data is also well-known.”
Claim 21 is an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage that is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for the storing steps of the independent claims
Claim 37 is rejected under a similar rationale as claims 20-21
Claim 38 is rejected under a similar rationale as claims 7-8 as discussed above for the “obtaining…scanning…”, followed by an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data transmitting that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);”
Claim 39 is considered as mere instructions to “apply it” and as generally linking to a field of use/technological environment, akin to claim 3 as discussed above.
Claim 41 is adding a math concept to the claimed invention of mathematical relationships in textual form, when this is read in view of ¶ 58: “The new surface type can be associated with a face in the same manner as a classic surface is associated with a face, so allowing a mesh to be used as the surface of a face. A new curve type is also defined, comprising a connected collection of line segments, which is termed a polyline. The new curve type can be associated with an edge in the same manner as any curve, or with a fin, in the same way as an SP-curve (surface parameter-space curve, i.e. a 3d curve resulting from embedding a 2d curve in the parameter space of a surface, which represents curves "drawn" on to a surface). The polyline can be used as the curve of a fin in a face whose surface is a mesh; or a polyline can be used as the curve of an edge, all of whose adjacent faces have mesh surfaces. The mesh is then treated as a surface in a B-rep model and the polylines is used as a curve in a B-rep model” – and ¶¶ 78-84: “In general the positions are communicated using the u, v coordinates of the surface parameterization. However, if the CAD system also wishes to treat facet meshes as surfaces, this causes a problem as facet meshes cannot be parameterized in the same way as a boundary representation model, as they may have a high topological genus, contain holes or be disjoint”, and ¶ 53: “A facet is a triangular region of a plane” – i.e. these are mathematical relationships in geometry, i.e. the collection of facets are the mathematical relationships of and between a plurality of triangles in geometry, wherein the new surface type is a mathematical relationship between the math relationships of the facets to the geometry of a “surface” in the boundary representation model. The clarify on these portions of the disclosure, see Appeal 2024-000206 as was discussed above.
Should this be found not to be part of the math concept, then this would be akin to MPEP § 2106.05(f): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp…” as was discussed above, include seeing the above discussed portion of the opinion of this case, and also see in this opinion: “…The PRTs and MRTs are, at bottom, broadly [***8] defined labels for generic data types that transfer data from one type of electronic document to another—here, the so-called dynamic document… The mere fact that the inventor applied coined labels to conventional structures does not make the underlying concept inventive.” – and see the above discussed evidence of the collection of facets being WURC.
Claim 42 is considered as math relationships in textual form in view of ¶¶ 78-84 and 53, in particular see ¶ 83, wherein this is also considered as a mental process step, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, e.g. a person observing the collection of facets on the display of a computer, or a print-out from the computer, or a pen and paper drawing (e.g. fig. 12), and mentally judging/evaluating to provide coordinates of the triangles, e.g. when the triangles are on a regular grid, e.g. graph paper, akin to fig. 12, one would readily be able to use a ruler or the like to observe/evaluate coordinates in the facets/triangles, wherein such a process is akin to that of a cartographer, or a military commander, assigning grid numbers to areas defined by latitude and longitude
Claim 43 is considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the functional, result-oriented nature of this limitation, akin to “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and above
Claim 44 is adding a math concept of math calculations in textual form to the abstract idea, akin to the one discussed in detail in the Appeal 2024-000206.The recitation of “wherein the use of the modified parametrization allows a user input…” is given its BRI in view of MPEP § 2111.04(I): “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure… However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003))”
Should it be found that patentable weight should be given to the “wherein…” clause, then the Examiner notes that this would be considered as mere instructions to “apply it” akin to “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as discussed above, as the claim recites with no particularity how the modified parameterization is used in a particular technological manner to provide this functionality/result
In addition, see MPEP § 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”
Claim 45 is mere instructions to “apply it” as well as a token post-solution activity akin to the cutting of hair with scissors of In re Brown in MPEP § 2106.05(g and f), and WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for claims 15-16
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 4-5, 10-14, 18-22, 37, 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Siemens, “World-class finite element analysis (FEA) solution for the Windows desktop”, copyright 2008, URL: www(dot)plm(dot)automation(dot)siemens(dot)com/en_gb/Images/fe%20finite%20element%20analysis%20for%20windows%20fs%20W%205_tcm642-53789(dot)pdf in further view of AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0 and in further view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012
Regarding Claim 1
Liepa teaches:
A computer-implemented method of optimizing a model of a product for additive manufacturing using data in different data processing formats, the method performed on a data processing system, the method comprising: (Liepa, abstract, and see fig. 1 along with its accompanying description)
in the data processing system, deriving a first data relating to one or more first parts of the product in a first format; in the data processing system, deriving a second data relating to one or more second parts of the product in a second format; wherein the first format comprises mesh data and wherein the second format comprises a classic geometric representation; in the data processing system, receiving instructions of a first selection of at least one of the first parts of the product comprising mesh data; in the data processing system, receiving instructions of a second selection of at least one of the second parts of the product comprising classic geometric representation data; (Liepa, abstract, and ¶¶ 12-13, then see ¶¶ 41-44: “To begin use of the Conform Rig tool, the user first selects the geometry to be modified, or conformed at step 302. Such geometry is referred to as a detail model and can be spline surface (including NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline and Bezier surfaces), subdivision surface, implicit Surface, algebraic Surface, procedural Surface, mesh Surface, Solid, Volume, curve, point, multiple surfaces, collections of contiguous Surfaces, and any other Surface(s), curve(s), point (s), solid(s) or volume(s)… At step 306, one or more surfaces, or a single mesh, or a single curve on any Surface (isoparms, trim boundaries, curves-on-Surface, trim mesh, patch precision lines), or a locator point on a Surface is selected as the destination. The destination is the geometry onto which the detail models are to be mapped… The destination Surface can be a spline Surface (including NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline and Bezier Surfaces). Subdivision Surface, implicit surface, algebraic Surface, procedural Surface, mesh Surface, boundary Surface (of a Solid or Volume), curve, multiple Surfaces, collections of contiguous Surfaces, and any other Surface(s) or curve(s). All Such Surface(s) can be tessellated (e.g., the tessellation of a mesh is the mesh itself)… Once the user has elected to proceed, the Conform operation takes the detail model geometry and, as if it was a thick stamp, applies it onto the destination surface at step 308.” e.g., ¶ 46: “In FIG.4, the detail model 402 is the round feature on the right and the destination 404 is the half-cylinder surface on the left.” – i.e. this receives first and second data of the destination model and the detail model in different model formats, wherein the user then performs selections with the received geometry data – to clarify on the BRI of classic geometry representation, see ¶ 54 of the instant disclosure
to clarify on the products modelled, see ¶ 7 for the examples: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination). For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile or the side of a shoe. In another example, a semi-soft rubber disc may be wrapped around a cylindrical Surface. With Such an application/effect, it may be desirable for the detail model to conform to a curved destination surface yet retain its detail model proportions.”
applying a modelling operation to one or more of the selected first and second parts; providing a representation of the product including the selected of the at least one first part and the selected of the at least one second part; (Liepa, ¶ 44: “Once the user has elected to proceed, the Conform operation takes the detail model geometry and, as if it was a thick stamp, applies it onto the destination surface at step 308.” Which is an example of a modelling operation, for other example modeling operations see ¶ 47: “In FIG. 4, the top of the detail model 402 has been stretched. Embodiments of the invention may provide an option to modify/change how the detail model 402 stretches. In this regard, both the thickness and footprint may operate independently of each other (or together) and a user may establish/control Such a setting and operation”, ¶ 48: “404. Using the various buttons 406, 408, 410, and 412 at the bottom of the modeling window, the user may elect to be in translate 406, rotate 408, scale 410, or elevate 412 mode. Each mode may update and perform the desired operation dynamically in real time” – see ¶¶ 49-54 for more clarification on this, as well as ¶ 58, and ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 Surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).”, and see figures 4-9 for visual examples, also see ¶ 76
storing the mesh data of the first format as a collection of facets forming a faceted model, (First, to clarify on the BRI of facets, see instant disclosure ¶ 53 and ¶ 5: “the mesh data representation comprising a plurality of triangles each representing a facet.”, e.g. Liepa, ¶ 14: “The mapping is defined from the flattened triangles to the triangles of the destination Surface tessellation, and then as a projection (or a closest point determination) from the tessellation triangles to the destination Surface.”, and see ¶ 30: “Generally, the program 108 comprises logic and/or data tangibly embodied in or readable from a device, media, carrier, signal, or computer-readable medium, e.g., data storage device 104, which could include one or more fixed and/or removable data storage devices 104. Such as a Zip drive, floppy disc drive, hard drive, CD-ROM drive, tape drive, etc. connected directly or indirectly to the computer 100, one or more remote devices coupled to the computer 100 via a data communications device, etc.”, and ¶¶ 41-46 as discussed above, i.e. in Liepa, the “data” being operated on was stored, and the “data” included the “mesh” data of Liepa which was a collection of “triangles”, as such Liepa stored the mesh data as a collection of facets/triangles)
wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in a boundary representation model and the boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation… wherein the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data are attached to the boundary representation model and modelling operations are applied in the form in which the data is held without any change to the first format in which the one or more first parts is originally represented or to the second format in which the one or more second parts is originally represented such that modifications to the selected at least one first part of the representation of the product are in the same first format in which the first data of the one or more first parts is originally generated and modifications to the selected at least one second part of the representation of the product are in the same second format in which the second data of the one or more second parts is originally generated. (Liepa, ¶¶41-46 as discussed above, then see ¶¶ 63-71, include seeing: ¶ 71: “Accordingly, the detail model 402 is mapped to the original Smooth Surface in a highly accurate manner while preserving the shape of the detail model 402 (e.g., without altering the shape of the detail model 402). Thus, rather than merely mapping the detail model 402 to a mesh representation of the destination 404, embodiments of the present invention map the detail model 402 to the actual original destination 404.” And ¶ 67: “...In other words, the mapping proceeds from the detail model to the flattened destination 404 version to the curved destination 404 version, to the original destination 404 Surface. Such a reverse mapping is enabled based on the mappings (e.g., the generation of the new parameterization 1004 may result in the use of a mapping to/from the tessellated destination surface from/to the flattened tessellated destination Surface) (e.g., the tessellated destination Surface may produce/result in a mapping to/from the mesh representation from/to the original destination Surface) obtained during the steps 1002 and 1004...”, also see ¶ 7 as discussed above: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination). For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile or the side of a shoe. In another example, a semi-soft rubber disc may be wrapped around a cylindrical Surface” - i.e. this takes a “detail model” and attaches to “another object (referred to as a destination)” [a destination model, e.g. for a “shoe” or an “automobile”] by the “mapping” operation “without altering the shape of the detail model” (¶¶ 63-71), i.e. this maps between the “original destination surface” and the original “detail model”, to clarify, ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 Surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).” – i.e. there is an original detail model, and the mapped/conformed “detail model” is a representation of the original detail model that is attached/mapped to the “original destination surface” via the “parameterization” discussed in ¶¶ 63-71 in detail (see the instant disclosure, ¶¶ 80-84; see Appeal 2024-000206 for its discussion of Liepa on this feature, including page 18) wherein Liepa clarifies in ¶ 66: “In this regard, step 1006 may be viewed as a process wherein the detail model 402 is overlayed onto the flattened mesh and for every point of the detail model surface 402 (e.g., each point of the detail model 402 may be mapped to a point of the destination surface which may be a point on or in the vicinity of the destination Surface),” – i.e. each model is treated as a surface to the other model in the attachment, by the mapping. See ¶ 43 for additional clarification: “It may be noted that the process for selecting the detail model Surface, selecting a tool to perform the conform operation, the user selecting the destination Surface, and the displaying of the detail model Surface mapped to the destination Surface may be performed in any temporal order.” ,
With respect to the boundary representation model, instant disclosure ¶ 54: “The B-rep technology provides an efficient and adaptable representation of parts by combining classic geometry: analytic surfaces and curves, non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS) and procedural surfaces and curves; with topology, which captures the connectivity and interaction between geometric elements” – see Liepa, ¶ 41: “Such geometry is referred to as a detail model and can be a spline surface (including NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline and Bezier surfaces), subdivision surface, implicit Surface, algebraic Surface [examples of analytic surfaces], procedural Surface, mesh Surface, Solid, Volume, curve, point, multiple surfaces, collections of contiguous Surfaces, and any other Surface(s), curve(s), point (s), solid(s) or volume(s).” and ¶ 43: “The destination Surface can be a spline Surface (including NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline and Bezier Surfaces). Subdivision Surface, implicit surface, algebraic Surface, procedural Surface, mesh Surface, boundary Surface (of a Solid or Volume), curve, multiple Surfaces, collections of contiguous Surfaces, and any other Surface(s) or curve(s). All Such Surface(s) can be tessellated (e.g., the tessellation of a mesh is the mesh itself).”
Wherein, as a result of this mapping modeling operations are applied in the form the data is held without changing the data format of the original models - ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 Surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).” – i.e. the input models themselves are modified, and the mapping provides for the updating of the conformed model when either input model is modified – to further clarify on this point, ¶ 76: “Embodiments of the invention may also provide the ability to translate 406 a copy of a detail model 402 along a destination surface 404, and to rotate 408, scale 410, and elevate 412. This can be achieved by inserting additional transformations in the mapping chain…” and ¶ 79: “embodiments of the invention solve the problem of creating a copy of the detail model that conforms to a curved destination Surface yet retains the original detail model proportions”
in addition to the above, should it be found that Liepa does not anticipate this feature of the “…modelling operations are applied in the form in which the data is held without any change to the first format…”, see view of Liepa ¶¶ 63-71 in detail, the instant disclosure, ¶¶ 80-84 including in ¶ 81: “The use of a modified parameterisation allows a user input made in a boundary representation model to be mapped to data held only in mesh format, using the same mechanisms as classic surfaces.”; and Appeal 2024-000206 for its discussion of Liepa on this feature, then see MPEP § 2145(II): “Prima Facie Obviousness Is Not Rebutted by Merely Recognizing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties Present But Not Recognized in the Prior Art”: “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979)… "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)”
While Liepa does not explicitly teach the following feature, this would have been obvious when taken in view of Siemens: wherein offsetting, shelling, or thickening operations and detailing is applied directly to the mesh data without any conversion of the faceted model to a surface representation; (Liepa, as was discussed above including ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 Surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).”
In view of Siemens, page 1, then see page 2: “Geometry modeling and editing Femap provides extensive geometry creation and editing tools that enable engineers to effectively, efficiently create geometry for analysis, including… Solids – create blocks, cylinders, cones and spheres, extrude and revolve, Boolean operations, explode and stitch, fillet and chamfer, shell thicken and remove face…” – also, page 4: “Meshing and mesh editing”: “Benefit from flexible mesh controls and extensive editing capabilities:” “Extrude, revolve, sweep – extrude, revolve or sweep curves, elements or element faces” [example of detailing] and “Edit element – change element connectivity, modify order of element. Scale, translate, rotate or align elements. Modify offsets, orientation and reverse normal of planar elements. Modify element property or type. Modify planar element material angle, plate thickness and shell properties. Adjust beam warping. Add or remove coefficients of thermal expansion for rigid elements”- to clarify, the Examiner notes shelling is an example of hollowing, as it shells the object, i.e. creates a hollow space inside the object as it turns it into a shell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa on “In Summary, given a three dimensional detail model that is defined over a reference plane, embodiments of the invention solve the problem of creating a copy of the detail model that conforms to a curved destination Surface yet retains the original detail model proportions” (Liepa, ¶ 79) with the teachings from Siemens on features of “Femap® software is an advanced engineering analysis environment for simulation of complex engineering problems” (Siemens, summary).
The motivation to combine would have been that “…Using Femap engineers can simulate the performance of their products virtually to determine their performance and behavior, reducing the need for testing and prototypes..” (Siemens, page 1, summary). Additional motivations to combine are listed n the “Benefits” section on page 1: “Significantly speed up the design process by bringing simulation closer to design and reducing time to- market Reduce the need for costly prototypes and testing, saving time and money Perform failure analysis that improves product performance and reliability, reducing costly recalls Evaluate and optimize designs to minimize material use, investigate use of alternative materials and perform trade-off studies to evaluate differing designs Standalone engineering analysis environment that can exchange data with any CAD system and simulate using all major commercial solvers”
Additional motivations to combine are: “Femap provides extensive geometry creation and editing tools that enable engineers to effectively, efficiently create geometry for analysis” (page 2), and “Benefit from flexible mesh controls and extensive editing capabilities:” (page 4).
In addition, the Examiner also notes that as per ¶ 61 these types of modeling operations are “conventional”/”current modelling operations”, as also demonstrated by Siemens as discussed above, as well as the previously relied upon Siemens, “Parasolid: The world’s leading production-proven 3D modeling kernel”, copyright 2011, as was discussed in Appeal 2023-001298 on pages 8-9 – as such, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A) for its discussion of “Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969)” in example 1, and the KSR rationale of “A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” is also readily applicable.
While Liepa, in view of Siemens does not explicitly teach the following, this is taught when Liepa, in view of Zhang, is taken in further view of AutoCAD2k10 and Matt:
and wherein the offsetting is applied directly to the mesh data that represents an outer wall of the product in the boundary representation model, and wherein a result of applying the offsetting comprises the mesh data forming an inner wall of the product in the boundary representation model; and modelling the at least one second part in the second format comprising interior geometry of the part on an inside of the inner wall of the product (Liepa, as was taken in view of Siemens above,
as taken in further view of AutoCAD2k10 for performing an offsetting operation in the manner claimed on a converted mesh surface (i.e. on a classic geometry format) – see the video for the following transcript times: “3:00 - context as in this example this 3:02 - motorcycle was modeled 100% inside 3:05 - AutoCAD using mesh and solids another 3:08 - section will show that the converted 3:10 - mesh can allow any of the solid 3:12 - operations like in this case 3:14 - shell within a few hours a proficient 3:17 - user can come up with a model like this 3:20 - which would have taken an important 3:22 - amount of time before or would have just 3:24 - been impossible to create in…” wherein this shows the “converted mesh” was shelled with an offset to generate an interior surface, wherein this is part of a model (3:28) of a motorcycle, wherein depicted in the model the offset/shelling operation was used to generate a hollow space in the interior of the motorcycle, wherein there are other portions visually depicted of the model including outer portions, wherein the Examiner does note it stated “converted mesh”
wherein AutoCAD2k10 does not teach applying such an offset operation to mesh data, but this is taught by Matt - Matt, ¶¶ 1-2 including: “I’m taking the Offset and Shell to be roughly the same thing for the purposes of this discussion…” then ¶ 11: “And then finally, we get to stuff like what is shown on the right. This was scanned in, and then the point cloud was surfaced over badly, and my job was to shell it. Obviously, the Shell feature didn’t work for this. This was shelled manually by offsetting the outer surface to the inside, trimming out some undercuts, then creating a solid from the original, offsetting a sketch to the inside of the back of the solid block, and cutting up to the offset and trimmed surface. Ugly, and certainly not exact, but it worked, and they are casting parts now.”, as to doing this automatically this would have been obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04(III): “AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY” as it would have simply been automating what Matt manually did
then note the comment by Kevin Quigley on Jan. 11th, 2012: “Cadjunkie has a great demo video of tysElements where he models a toy car in Modo and shows this offset mesh trick into SolidWorks via TsElements… his is why I think the future is a combination of mesh and nurbs.”
PNG
media_image1.png
965
1446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from modeling system of Liepa, Zhang, and Matt above with the teachings from AutoCAD2k10 on a similar such system wherein the modelled product is a motorcycle.
The rationale to combine is that this would have required only a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of what product was being modelled, i.e. to use Liepa’s system, as modified by above, on a model of a motorcycle such depicted in AutoCAD2k10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa, as discussed above, on a system to “solve the problem of creating a copy of the detail model that conforms to a curved destination Surface yet retains the original detail model proportions.” (Liepa, ¶ 79) with the teachings from Matt on Matt on using “offsetting” to achieve the effects of shelling. The motivation to combine would have been that “Obviously, the Shell feature didn’t work for this…. Ugly, and certainly not exact, but it worked, and they are casting parts now.” (Matt, ¶ 11).
In addition, the Examiner notes that the modification of AutoCAD2k10 with the teachings of Matt is nothing more than a simple substitution as well, as its merely simply substituting in what data the offset is being applied to, wherein such an offset operation is readily performable, and has been performed, in commercially available modeling packages (e.g. AutoCAD; Parasolid; SolidWorks, as evidenced above).
Regarding Claim 4
Liepa, in view of Siemens teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: applying features to one or more of the selected first and second parts of the product via Boolean operations. (Liepa, as was taken in view of Siemens, as discussed above, include seeing Siemens, then see page 2: “Geometry modeling and editing Femap provides extensive geometry creation and editing tools that enable engineers to effectively, efficiently create geometry for analysis, including… Solids – create blocks, cylinders, cones and spheres, extrude and revolve, Boolean operations, explode and stitch, fillet and chamfer, shell thicken and remove face…”
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5
Liepa teaches:
The method according to claim 14, wherein the modifications to the selected at least one first part of the representation of the product in the same first format in which the first data of the one or more first parts is originally generated and modifications to the selected at least one second part of the representation of the product in the same second format in which the second data of the one or more second parts avoids converting the representation of a part between formats. (Liepa, as was discussed above in detail for similar recitations in claim 1, including ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 Surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).” – i.e. the modifications are in the original formats/input data formats, and the “mapping” as discussed above provides for avoiding the conversion of these the input data in these formats during the user modifications
Regarding Claim 10.
Liepa, in view of Siemens, teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the classic geometric representation of the second format is derived by simulation in the data processing system. (Liepa, ¶¶ 40-48 as discussed above, taken in view of Siemens, page 1, summary: “Femap® software is an advanced engineering analysis environment for simulation of complex engineering problems. Using Femap engineers can simulate the performance of their products virtually to determine their performance and behavior, reducing the need for testing and prototypes.”, then see benefits: “Significantly speed up the design process by bringing simulation closer to design and reducing time to-market…Evaluate and optimize designs to minimize material use, investigate use of alternative materials and perform trade-off studies to evaluate differing designs Standalone engineering analysis environment that can exchange data with any CAD system and simulate using all major commercial solvers” and see the “Product feature detail”: “Geometry interfaces Femap offers seamless geometry access to an extensive range of major CAD systems, including:… ACIS import (CAD geometry is converted to a Parasolid® software format on import) and export…NX® I-deas® software import (access to IDI files generated by I-deas 9.2, v10, v11 and beyond supported through I-deas Parasolid export) and universal file export through 9.0…IGES import and export of Parasolid geometry to the IGES format • NX software import for Unigraphics v11 - v18 and Parasolid geometry exported from all NX versions • Parasolid import and export – Femap is a native Parasolid application, and Parasolid geometry is accessed through the same Parasolid modeling kernel that any Parasolid-based CAD program uses providing full direct access to your geometry…”
The rationale to combine would be the same as discussed above, with additional motivations including: summary: “Using Femap engineers can simulate the performance of their products virtually to determine their performance and behavior, reducing the need for testing and prototypes.”, then see benefits: “Significantly speed up the design process by bringing simulation closer to design and reducing time to-market…Evaluate and optimize designs to minimize material use, investigate use of alternative materials and perform trade-off studies to evaluate differing designs Standalone engineering analysis environment that can exchange data with any CAD system and simulate using all major commercial solvers” and see the “Product feature detail”: “Geometry interfaces Femap offers seamless geometry access to an extensive range of major CAD systems”)
Regarding Claim 11.
Liepa, in view of Siemens, teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving instructions of a third selection of at least one of the one or more first parts and the one or more second parts of the product for modification; in response to the selected part of the third selection comprising a classic geometric representation, applying a classic geometric modification to the geometric representation of the part; in response to the selected part of the third selection comprising mesh data, applying a facet-based modification to the mesh data of the part; and, providing a modification to the representation of the modified part, wherein the part is modified by the classic geometric modification of the facet-based modification. (Liepa, as discussed above including ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 Surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).” – in view of Liepa, ¶¶ 41-46 as discussed above, i.e. ¶ 60 teaches that the user applies modifications to the input models, wherein ¶¶ 41-43 clarify that one model is a classic geometry representation, and the second model is a mesh/facet model, and hence the modifications to those models, in their input format, would be classic geometric based and facet/mesh based respective, and the updating step in ¶ 60 would be the provided modification to the representation
with respect to doing repeated modifications, this would have been obvious because this would have simply been the user choosing to do additional modifications, this would have also been obvious because this would have been duplicating the user actions, akin to “Duplication of Parts” as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04
while the claim does not recite specifically what these modifications are, should it be found that more particularity as to what modifications may be done are, see Liepa, ¶ 60, as was taken in combination with Siemens as discussed above, wherein the rationale to do these particular modifications would be the same as discussed above
Regarding Claim 12.
Liepa, in view of Siemens, teaches: The method according to claim 11, wherein the classic geometric modification or the facet-based modification comprises a modelling operation. (Liepa, ¶ 60 as discussed above: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 Surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).” – i.e. this teaches that the modifications are modelling operations as they are operating on the input models, also see the above discussion of Liepa in view of Siemens in claim 11)
Regarding Claim 13.
Liepa, in view of Siemens, teaches:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the modelling operation is applied to a physical model of the product comprising both mesh data of the first format and a classic geometric representation of the second format. (Liepa, ¶ 60 as discussed above: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 Surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).” – i.e. this is updating the physical model (e.g. fig. 4-9) of the product with both the destination model and the conformed/mapped details models, also see the above discussion of Liepa in view of Siemens in claim 11)
Regarding Claim 14.
Liepa teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: storing the representation of the product. (Liepa, ¶ 60 as discussed above, as taken in view of see ¶ 30: “Generally, the program 108 comprises logic and/or data tangibly embodied in or readable from a device, media, carrier, signal, or computer-readable medium, e.g., data storage device 104, which could include one or more fixed and/or removable data storage devices 104. Such as a Zip drive, floppy disc drive, hard drive, CD-ROM drive, tape drive, etc. connected directly or indirectly to the computer 100, one or more remote devices coupled to the computer 100 via a data communications device, etc. – i.e. the data being operated on in Liepa was stored, or at least was suggested to be stored)
Regarding Claim 18.
Liepa teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: extracting a fifth data from the representation of the product and at least one of; generating an image for display, exporting a sixth data for further processing, or generating the image for display and exporting the sixth data. (Liepa, ¶¶ 48-51: “Inside the Conform Rig tool, the user may be per mitted to adjust how the detail models 402 are mapped to the destination 404. Using the various buttons 406, 408, 410, and 412 at the bottom of the modeling window, the user may elect to be in translate 406, rotate 408, scale 410, or elevate 412 mode. Each mode may update and perform the desired operation dynamically in real time… In translate 406 mode, the user may choose the position of the detail model 402 with respect to the destination 404…. The translation is based on the base point of the detail model 402. When the destination 404 is an entire surface or a mesh or a set of Stitchable Surfaces, this base point can be positioned at any point on the destination 404. Otherwise, if the destination 404 is a surface curve, the base point is constrained to move along the curve… Furthermore, if the destination 404 is a surface curve, regular Snapping (using one of three tools) may be available. For example, the user can Snap the base point to the associated curve division, curve intersection, etc. Using the surface curve as the conform destination 404 allows for pre cise placement of the detail model 402 on the destination 404. If there are parts of the detail model 402 that extend beyond the boundaries of the destination 404, the tool extrapolates with respect to the destination 404. FIG. 5 illustrates a tangential extrapolation in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. translate the detail model 402 on the destination 404, the user selects/clicks the translate button 406 and click drags along the destination 404 Surface—the detail model 402 follows. While dragging, a highlighting (e.g., a bright green outline) may be visibly displayed. Such highlighting may be a proxy that represents a lightweight approximation of the detail model 402. The proxy allows for real-time interactive updates. The detail models 402 may actually update (e.g., in accordance with a finalized proxy) when the user releases the mouse button…”- i.e. these are examples of data being extracted from the representation, used for generating an image (e.g. of the updated positioning, of the “While dragging, a highlighting (e.g., a bright green outline) may be visibly displayed. Such highlighting may be a proxy that represents a lightweight approximation of the detail model 402. The proxy allows for real-time interactive updates”, and further data is exported for further processing, e.g. ¶ 51: “The detail models 402 may actually update (e.g., in accordance with a finalized proxy) when the user releases the mouse button.” - then see ¶ 60 which provides an example of further processing
Regarding Claim 19.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1 above, wherein Liepa teaches: A data processing system comprising: at least a processor and accessible memory, the data processing system configured to represent a product, wherein a method is executed by the data processing system, the method comprising: (Liepa, abstract, and see fig. 1 along with its accompanying description)
Regarding Claim 20.
Liepa teaches: The data processing system according to claim 19, further comprising: a display configured to output the representation of the product. (Liepa, fig. 4-9, ¶ 7, and ¶ 29)
Regarding Claim 21.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 14 above.
Regarding Claim 22.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1 above, wherein Liepa teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed on a computer, cause one or more data processing systems to perform a method of modelling a product, the method comprising: (Liepa, abstract, and see fig. 1 along with its accompanying description)
Regarding Claim 37.
This is rejected under a similar rationale as claims 14, 21-22 as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 41.
Liepa teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the boundary representation model defines a new surface type to represent the mesh data as the collection of facets such that the mesh data is treated as the surface in the boundary representation model. (See Liepa, as was discussed in detail above for claim 1, including for the storing step, and for the mesh data being treated as a surface – i.e. see Liepa, ¶¶ 7, 14, 41-46, 60, 63-71,and 43)
Regarding Claim 42.
Liepa teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the mesh data is represented as the collection of facets and wherein the representation of the product including the selected first part defines a pair of coordinates used in the boundary representation model wherein a first coordinate indicates an identifier of a respective facet among the collection of facets and a second coordinate indicates a representative point of the respective facet among the collection of facets. (See Liepa, as was discussed in detail above for claim 1, including for the storing step, and for the mesh data being treated as a surface – i.e. see Liepa, ¶¶ 7, 14, 41-46, 60, 63-71,and 43
In particular, ¶ 66: “At step 1006, a reverse mapping is defined from the new parameterization to the destination Surface (e.g., via the parameterization and mesh representation). In this regard, step 1006 may be viewed as a process wherein the detail model 402 is overlayed onto the flattened mesh and for every point of the detail model surface 402 (e.g., each point of the detail model 402 may be mapped to a point of the destination surface which may be a point on or in the vicinity of the destination Surface), the appropriate triangle of the flattened mesh is identified. With the triangle, embodiments work backwards and identify the triangle on the original unflattened mesh which in turn is utilized to identify the actual point on the original destination Surface 404.”
To clarify, also see ¶¶ 69-71: “The detail model can be considered to exist in world space, which is coordinatized by XYZ (x,y,z) position coordinates. The reference plane defines reference space, which is coordinatized by a point (r. S) on the reference plane and distance t from the reference plane. The mapping between world space and reference space is defined by the relation (x,y,z) rR+SR+tR. Parameter space is coordinatized by UVW (u,v,w) coordinates. Further, destination space is coordinatized by position on the destination Surface and distance along an assigned normal at that position. These spaces are all three dimensional. UV space is a subspace of parameter space and may be coordinatized by (u,v). A point of UV space may be viewed as a point (u,v.0) in parameter space. As used herein, the flattened mesh can be viewed as lying in the (u,v.0) plane. As described above, step 1006 maps each point of the detail model onto the flattened mesh, to the curved mesh, to the original destination Surface 404. For example, a point (x,y,z) in the detail model 402 may be mapped into reference space to identify reference coordinates (r.S.t). Such that (x,y, Z) rR+SR+tRa. These coordinates can be interpreted as a point (r.S.t) in parameter space, which can be interpreted as a point (r.S.0) and a height t. The point (r.S.0), contained in a triangle on the flattened tessellated mesh, is then mapped to the corresponding triangle in the curved mesh (or non-flattened mesh) using barycentric interpolation. The identified point on the curved mesh is then mapped to the closest point (or a projection) on the original destination Surface 404...”
Regarding Claim 43.
Liepa teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the steps of the method avoid converting the first data from the first format to a classic geometric representation and exclude converting the second data from the second format to mesh data such that the applying the modelling operation is made to the first data and the second data in the same format as the first data and the second data were originally generated. (See Liepa, as was discussed in detail above for claim 1, including seeing Liepa, ¶¶ 7, 14, 41-46, 60, 63-71 as were discussed in detail above
Regarding Claim 44.
Liepa teaches:
The method according to claim 42, further comprising providing a mapping between a natural parameterization of the mesh data and a modified parameterization of the mesh data comprising the pair of coordinates used in the boundary representation model; (See Liepa, as was discussed in detail above for claim 1, including seeing Liepa, ¶¶ 7, 14, 41-46, 60, 63-71 as were discussed in detail above, in particular see ¶¶ 64, 66-67, and 75. For clarification, see Appeal 2024-000206 for its discussion of claim 1 for the § 103 rejection in view of Liepa, and the Examiner notes that the present claims do not recite an integer identifier as recited in the ‘340 application hence Co is not presently relied upon)
wherein the use of the modified parametrization allows a user input made in the boundary representation model to be mapped to data held only in the first format of the mesh data. (Liepa, ¶ 60 as was discussed above, along with the additional clarifying citations, in addition this limitation is interpreted in view of MPEP § 2111.04(I): “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure…However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).”
Claims 7-8, 15-16, 38, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Siemens, “World-class finite element analysis (FEA) solution for the Windows desktop”, copyright 2008, URL: www(dot)plm(dot)automation(dot)siemens(dot)com/en_gb/Images/fe%20finite%20element%20analysis%20for%20windows%20fs%20W%205_tcm642-53789(dot)pdf in further view of AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0 and in further view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012 in further view of Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, 2015
Regarding Claim 7
While Liepa, in view of Siemens, does not explicitly teach the following feature, Liepa, in view of Siemens and in further view of Zhang teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the mesh data of the first format is derived from a physical sample of the one or more first parts. (Liepa, as was discussed above including ¶¶ 41-48, as taken in view of Zhang, see figure 2 including for the “Digitization of the damaged part” which results in a “STL mesh model” from “Scanning” a product, as clarified in § 2.2 # 1: “In this paper, we use the RE technology to obtain the digitized geometric model of the damaged part. Non-contact sensing techniques are used to acquire the sampled point clouds, and then the acquired point clouds are converted into a set of triangular meshes through registration, removing noise, triangulation, etc. Finally, the mesh model of the damaged part is output in the STL (Stereo Lithography) file format”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa, as modified above, on “A method, apparatus, and article of manufacture provide the ability to map a detail model to a destination while preserving the shape of the detail model” (Liepa, abstract, and see fig. 1 along with its accompanying description) with the teachings from Zhang on “…Important work to implement this technology is to construct the geometric model of the damaged or worn region, which lays the foundation for the computation of the tool path and the virtual digit repair...” (Zhang, abstract, see § 2.1 ¶ 2 to clarify as well as figure 2 and § 2.2)
The motivation to combine would have been that “This method can avoid reconstructing the scanned mesh surface so the efficiency and accuracy of geometric modelling gets a lot of improving.” (Zhang, § 5 ¶ 1). An additional motivation to combine would have been that “…Recently, the development of the reverse engineering technology provides a feasible solution to the issue [4]… The cloud data can be converted to a set of triangular meshes, which forms the geometrical boundary of the damaged region. On the other hand, the CAD solid model of the damaged part represents the design requirements for the geometry and topology of the defect-free part. In addition, the CAD model of the damaged part is usually available” (Zhang, § 2.1, ¶ 1) – i.e. Zhang would have provided a technique to obtain a mesh model from “scanning” (fig. 2) as while the “CAD model…is usually available”, the mesh model may not be “available” without such “Digitization” (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8
Liepa, in view of Zhang, teaches:
The method according to claim 7, wherein the mesh data of the first format is derived by scanning a physical sample of the one or more first parts. (Liepa, as was discussed above including ¶¶ 41-48, as taken in view of Zhang, see figure 2 including for the “Digitization of the damaged part” which results in a “STL mesh model” from “Scanning” a product, as clarified in § 2.2 # 1: “In this paper, we use the RE technology to obtain the digitized geometric model of the damaged part. Non-contact sensing techniques are used to acquire the sampled point clouds, and then the acquired point clouds are converted into a set of triangular meshes through registration, removing noise, triangulation, etc. Finally, the mesh model of the damaged part is output in the STL (Stereo Lithography) file format”)
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 15.
Liepa teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: extracting a third data from the representation of the product (Liepa, as was discussed above, in particular see the rejection above for claim 18 for the extracting step)
While Liepa, in view of Siemens, does not explicitly teach the following feature, Liepa, in view of Siemens and in further view of Zhang teaches: and generating manufacturing instructions for a manufacturing process of the product. (Liepa, as was discussed above, as taken in view of Zhang, abstract: “The accurate additive manufacturing technology provides an effective and efficient means for remanufacturing or repairing high value and damaged engineering components. Important work to implement this technology is to construct the geometric model of the damaged or worn region, which lays the foundation for the computation of the tool path and the virtual digit repair” and Zhang, § 1 ¶ 1 – wherein the remanufacturing using additive manufacturing technology is an example of generating manufacturing instructions and then manufacturing it, wherein the instructions include “the computation of the tool path”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa, as modified above, on “A method, apparatus, and article of manufacture provide the ability to map a detail model to a destination while preserving the shape of the detail model” (Liepa, abstract, and see fig. 1 along with its accompanying description) with the teachings from Zhang on “…Important work to implement this technology is to construct the geometric model of the damaged or worn region, which lays the foundation for the computation of the tool path and the virtual digit repair...” (Zhang, abstract, see § 2.1 ¶ 2 to clarify as well as figure 2 and § 2.2)
The motivation to combine would have been that “The accurate additive manufacturing technology provides an effective and efficient means for remanufacturing or repairing high value and damaged engineering components…” Additional motivations to combine include: “This method can avoid reconstructing the scanned mesh surface so the efficiency and accuracy of geometric modelling gets a lot of improving.” (Zhang, § 5 ¶ 1). An additional motivation to combine would have been that “…Recently, the development of the reverse engineering technology provides a feasible solution to the issue [4]… The cloud data can be converted to a set of triangular meshes, which forms the geometrical boundary of the damaged region. On the other hand, the CAD solid model of the damaged part represents the design requirements for the geometry and topology of the defect-free part. In addition, the CAD model of the damaged part is usually available” (Zhang, § 2.1, ¶ 1) – i.e. Zhang would have provided a technique to obtain a mesh model from “scanning” (fig. 2) as while the “CAD model…is usually available”, the mesh model may not be “available” without such “Digitization” (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16.
While Liepa, in view of Siemens, does not explicitly teach the following feature, Liepa, in view of Siemens and in further view of Zhang teaches: The method according to claim 15, wherein the manufacturing instructions comprise instructions for additive manufacturing. (Liepa, as was taken in view of Zhang, abstract: “The accurate additive manufacturing technology provides an effective and efficient means for remanufacturing or repairing high value and damaged engineering components. Important work to implement this technology is to construct the geometric model of the damaged or worn region, which lays the foundation for the computation of the tool path and the virtual digit repair” and Zhang, § 1 ¶ 1 – wherein the remanufacturing using additive manufacturing technology is an example of generating manufacturing instructions and then manufacturing it, wherein the instructions include “the computation of the tool path”
The rationale to combine is the same as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 38.
While Liepa, in view of Siemens, does not explicitly teach the following feature, Liepa, in view of Siemens and in further view of Zhang teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a physical model of the product; scanning, with a scanner, the physical model to obtain data that indicates the first data; and transmitting, from the scanner to a processor of the data processing system, the first data. (Liepa, as was discussed above including ¶¶ 41-48, as taken in view of Zhang, see figure 2 including for the “Digitization of the damaged part” which results in a “STL mesh model” from “Scanning” a product, as clarified in § 2.2 # 1: “In this paper, we use the RE technology to obtain the digitized geometric model of the damaged part. Non-contact sensing techniques are used to acquire the sampled point clouds, and then the acquired point clouds are converted into a set of triangular meshes through registration, removing noise, triangulation, etc. Finally, the mesh model of the damaged part is output in the STL (Stereo Lithography) file format”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa, as modified above, on “A method, apparatus, and article of manufacture provide the ability to map a detail model to a destination while preserving the shape of the detail model” (Liepa, abstract, and see fig. 1 along with its accompanying description) with the teachings from Zhang on “…Important work to implement this technology is to construct the geometric model of the damaged or worn region, which lays the foundation for the computation of the tool path and the virtual digit repair...” (Zhang, abstract, see § 2.1 ¶ 2 to clarify as well as figure 2 and § 2.2)
The motivation to combine would have been that “This method can avoid reconstructing the scanned mesh surface so the efficiency and accuracy of geometric modelling gets a lot of improving.” (Zhang, § 5 ¶ 1). An additional motivation to combine would have been that “…Recently, the development of the reverse engineering technology provides a feasible solution to the issue [4]… The cloud data can be converted to a set of triangular meshes, which forms the geometrical boundary of the damaged region. On the other hand, the CAD solid model of the damaged part represents the design requirements for the geometry and topology of the defect-free part. In addition, the CAD model of the damaged part is usually available” (Zhang, § 2.1, ¶ 1) – i.e. Zhang would have provided a technique to obtain a mesh model from “scanning” (fig. 2) as while the “CAD model…is usually available”, the mesh model may not be “available” without such “Digitization” (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 45
Rejected under a similar rationale as claims 15-16 above.
Claims 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Siemens, “World-class finite element analysis (FEA) solution for the Windows desktop”, copyright 2008, URL: www(dot)plm(dot)automation(dot)siemens(dot)com/en_gb/Images/fe%20finite%20element%20analysis%20for%20windows%20fs%20W%205_tcm642-53789(dot)pdf in further view of AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0 and in further view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012 in further view of Fujita et al., US 5,487,021
Regarding Claim 17.
Liepa teaches : The method according to claim 1, further comprising: extracting a fourth data from the representation of the product (Liepa, as was discussed above for claim 18 for the extracting step)
While Liepa, in view of Siemens, does not explicitly teach the following feature, Liepa, in view of Siemens and in further view of Fujita teaches: and determining at least one of fit between the parts of the product, clearance between the parts of the product and mass properties of the product. (Liepa, as was discussed above, as taken in view of Fujita, abstract: “The CAD system of the present invention allows an operator to easily recognize actual clearance values between displayed parts and provides clearance value optimization through simple operator intervention… The CPU calculates the clearance of the image data of the displayed parts and displays the clearance using contour lines set apart as calculated. The CPU also corrects the clearance between the displayed parts in accordance with operator instruction.” – to clarify, see fig. 3 and fig. 11, and their accompanying descriptions
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa on a method to provide “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination).” (Liepa, ¶ 7; also see ¶ 79) with the teachings from Fujita on “The CAD system of the present invention allows an operator to easily recognize actual clearance values between displayed parts and provides clearance value optimization through simple operator intervention” (Fujita, abstract) The motivation to combine would have been that “The CAD system of the present invention allows an operator to easily recognize actual clearance values between displayed parts and provides clearance value optimization through simple operator intervention” (Fujita, abstract), also see col. 1, lines 60-65.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Datta, Ranadev, and C. Guedes Soares. "NURBS based scheme for automatic quadrilateral mesh generation for FE and BEM analysis." Marine Systems & Ocean Technology 7.1 (2012): 29-35. § 2.2, last two paragraphs, discussing how NURB surfaces are, by mathematical definition per equation 4, mapped to a “unit square” in R2 (two dimensional space), specifically note the “u” and “v” coordinates for this.
Dimitriou, V., A. Kanarachos, and D. Koulocheris. "An approach to unstructured finite element mesh generation using Coons mapping and smoothing techniques." WSEAS Transactions on Circuits and Systems 2 (2003): 473-478. § 2 discussing mapping to parametric (u, v) surfaces is mapping to “the unit square”, e.g. fig. 1, mathematically, and further describes in equations 2-3 a “Coons patch” calculation, wherein “Consequently, a line ui=const (rsp. vj=const) is mapped into a 3D Cartesian curve s(ui,v), (rsp. s(u,vj)) as it is presented in Fig. 1. This property is used for the production of finite element meshes.” Wherein it appears this is discussing the conventional generation of FEM meshes (§ 3 ¶¶ 1-2 and figures to contrast).
GOENKA, MOHIT. "Technique for Adaptive Mesh Generation." (2013). Mid-semester Interim B.Tech Report, Nov. 2013, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY in Kharagpur, India. See § 5.2: “One of the most commonly used Adaptive meshing techniques is Mapped element approach. This approach requires an object be subdivided manually into simple regions, each of which consists of three or four sides… Given a four sided region, a mesh can be induced in it by mapping a mesh template of the unit square in the parametric space to the region”
Grimm, Cindy M. "Parameterization using manifolds." International Journal of Shape Modeling 10.01 (2004): 51-81. Abstract and § 1 including: “There are many surface representations, such as meshes and implicit surfaces, that lack a “built-in” parameterization, such as the one provided by spline surfaces. The primary use of a surface parameterization in graphics is as a texture map. A parametric surface equation is also useful for calculating differential geometry entities such as geodesics and principal curvature. These metrics can then be used for applications such as feature extraction, shape classification, and comparisons of 3D objects. Parameterization is essentially the problem of flattening a surface (or piece of a surface) to the plane without folding or creasing it. This creates a mapping from the surface to the plane. Current approaches with meshes have focused on finding “nice” mappings that distribute distortions in well-behaved ways…” then see pages 5-6 paragraph split between the pages: “Several papers describe surface construction techniques using manifolds 15,16,35,36,31. Grimm’s approach 16 begins with a mesh and builds a manifold with one chart per mesh element. The approach in Navau and Garcia’s first paper 36 builds a manifold for a planar mesh by mapping the boundary of the mesh to the unit square. Charts and embedding functions can then be built on the unit square. We adopt this approach for planar meshes”
Ho-Le, K. "Finite element mesh generation methods: a review and classification." Computer-aided design 20.1 (1988): 27-38. Section “Mapped element approach” on page 3: “The mesh template is a rectangular mesh in the unit square (or a triangular mesh in a unit triangle) in the parametric space. It is mapped onto a four-sided (or three-sided) region to induce a mesh in the region via a blending function 23. An arbitrary object has to be subdivided manually into three- or four-sided regions, which are in effect macro elements (see Figure 13). This approach is the mainstay of existing commercial mesh generators.”
Hua, Tienyong, and Ibrahim Zeid. "A free-form mesh generator for three-dimensional surfaces." International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Vol. 97690. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1993. Abstract, § 2 ¶¶ 1-2: “Parametric surface representation is realized by using a continuous, vector-valued function P(u, v) of two parameters, ii and n. In most cases, u and v intervals are [0,1 ]. That makes the parametric surface maps into a unit square in the parametric space. The free-form surface mesh generation concept is described as follows. An analytic or synthetic surface can always's be transformed into its parametric space which is a two-dimensional space of u and v.” and see § 3.4, including its subsection “B-spline Surface”, noting B-splines are in the “u, v” parametric space as part of their definition (by equation)
Laug, P., and H. Borouchaki. "Interpolating and meshing 3d surface grids." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 58.2 (2003): 209-225. Pages 210-211, then see § 3.
Lee, Michael, and Hanan Samet. "Navigating through triangle meshes implemented as linear quadtrees." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 19.2 (2000): 79-121. Page 81, including: “Triangular meshes are not restricted to purely two-dimensional data. They are also useful in the modeling of data that lies on the surface of a sphere, as is the case, for example, in applications that involve modeling the earth (e.g., De Floriani et al. [1996]). Traditional ways of representing such data invariably resort to projections onto the plane (e.g., Tobler and Chen [1986]) using one of many possible projections (e.g., Snyder [1987]). Clearly, there is no perfect projection. Ideally, we would like the projection to facilitate a decomposition into units of equal area. The difficulty here is that units of equal area in the projection do not necessarily correspond to units of equal area on the surface of the sphere. For example, it would be ideal if the projection made use of the common concepts of latitudes and longitudes, as in the case of the Mercator projection (e.g., Snyder [1987]). Unfortunately, this leads to great distortion around the poles, thereby precluding the use of equally-spaced lines of latitude.”
Mounoury, Valérie, and Olivier Stab. "Automatic quadrilateral and hexahedral finite element mesh generation: review of existing methods." Revue européenne des éléments finis 4.1 (1995): 75-102. § 4.2, fig. 15 and: “Blaker uses various primitives as triangles, circles, semi-circles. But the other decomposition algorithms provide quadrilateral primitives. Most of the primitive meshing methods are based on mathematical transformations that allow to map a mesh template of a unit square (or a unit cube in 3D) onto a region with the same topology.”, followed by pages 95-96 incl.: “Chinnaswamy ([CHI 91]) uses an inverse transfinite mapping. A super-element, superimposed on a regular mesh of the domain, is mapped by an inverse transfinite mapping on a unit square. The external elements are removed ; those which intersect the square boundary are deformed or cut. Afterwards, the mesh is mapped again on the region. Figure 16 shows an example.”
Nguyen, Thien, and Bert Jüttler. "Parameterization of contractible domains using sequences of harmonic maps." International conference on curves and surfaces. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. Abstract and § I including: “To achieve that, our method creates a mapping from the domain to the unit square or unit cube, see Figure 1. The mapping should be regular or injective”
Peiró, Joaquim, Spencer J. Sherwin, and Sergio Giordana. "Automatic reconstruction of a patient-specific high-order surface representation and its application to mesh generation for CFD calculations." Medical & biological engineering & computing 46.11 (2008): 1069-1083. § 5, including # 3.
Provatidis, Christopher G. "CAD-FEA integration using Coons interpolation." ideas. Vol. 20. 2002. Abstract, and § 6 ¶¶ 1-4, and page 38 for fig. 3
Provatidis, C. G. "A review on attempts towards CAD/CAE integration using macroelements." Computational Research 1.3 (2013): 61-84. Abstract, then see § 2.1, then § 2.2.5.1, also see § 2.2.26 and its subsections including § 2.2.7. Then, see §§ 2.3.1.1 -2.3.1.2, then see § 2.3.1 including fig. 2.3.1
Weiss, Kenneth, and Leila De Floriani. "Sparse terrain pyramids." Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSPATIAL international conference on Advances in geographic information systems. 2008. § 3 and figure 1
Russel et al., US US 2003/0191554, fig. 5 and accompanying description, ¶¶ 120-132, including: “Projection is the inverse of texture mapping. Each node in the mesh of triangles has co-ordinates in the unit texture square given by its (x, y) coordinates relative to the XY extent of the mesh. The co-ordinates of any given point are transformed by an inverse of the texture transformation matrix to give a point in an output space of the TCG…”
Muller-Fischer et al., US 2007/0024620, figures 4 and accompanying description.
GIANNACOPOULOS et al., US 2015/0120261 ¶ 139: “Element merging in the FGaBP algorithm is demonstrated using a structured triangular mesh on a unit square domain. The Laplace equation is solved in the domain using zero Dirichlet on the boundary. The unit square is subdivided into equally spaced sub-squares where each square is further divided into two right triangles.”
University of Virginia Library, Article on “Lewis and Clark, The Maps of Exploration”, accessed Jan. 2026, URL: explore(dot)lib(dot)virginia.edu/exhibits/show/lewisclark/novusorbis/overview3. “Wright published “A Chart of the World on Mercator’s Projection” in 1600 based on his projection of a globe engraved by the English globe maker Emery Molyneux in 1592. It was the first map to use Wright’s improvements on Mercator’s projection. This map, sometimes called the “Wright-Molyneux Map,” also was published in The Principall Navigations, Voiages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation (London, 1598-1600), compiled by Richard Hakluyt.Considered a sixteenth-century cartographic landmark, the Wright-Molyneux Map is alluded to in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, when Maria says teasingly of Malvolio: “He does smile his face into more lynes, than is in the new Mappe, with the augmentation of the Indies…”
Merriam Webster Dictionary, Definition of “bijection”, accessed electronically Jan. 23rd, 2026, URL: merriam-webster(dot)com/dictionary/bijective: “a mathematical function that is a one-to-one and onto mapping”
Wolfram MathWorld, “Barycentric Coordinates”, Jan. 23rd 2026, URL: mathworld(dot)wolfram(dot)com/BarycentricCoordinates(dot)html
Ungar, Abraham Albert. "An introduction to hyperbolic barycentric coordinates and their applications." Mathematics Without Boundaries: Surveys in Interdisciplinary Research. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2014. 577-648
Yu, TzuYi, and Alan Shih. "Surface Reconstruction and Mesh Generation Using Reverse Engineering Approach." 43rd AIA A Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. 2005. §§ II-III, in particular § III tables 1-2 and ¶ 1: “For reverse engineering, there are many different type of scanner hardware available. They varies from optical scanning, laser scanning, to contact scanning. In this study, two types of scanners are utilized.”
Geomagic, User Guide, Nov. 2013, URL: engineering(dot)pitt(dot)edu/contentassets/52314f399aba40fa86709314a569641c/geomagicdesignx2014userguide(dot)pdf - for a user guide for commercially available software; then see § 1.1 ¶ 1: “Thank you for choosing Geomagic Design X, the most comprehensive 3D Scan-To-CAD Software Solution. 3D Systems, Inc. is the leader in providing technologies that make 3D scanning a powerful tool for a variety of applications including manufacturing, R&D, quality inspection, medical research, civil engineering and more, and is now presenting the future of 3D scanning software technology with its next generation 3D scan data processing platform, Geomagic. Geomagic Design X makes the process of creating parametric CAD models from real world parts faster and easier by utilizing a design process and user interface that are instantly familiar to CAD users.” Then, see the section on “True Hybrid Modeler” on page 11: “Geomagic Design X is a truly comprehensive 3D scan data processing application that offers parametric solid modeling capabilities, NURBS surfacing capabilities, and a hybrid modeling process that utilizes both capabilities for the creation of parametric CAD models that contain freeform features.” – as discussed further starting on page 47 in the section: “Reverse Modeling Process” including “The Reverse Modeling process is the process of creating an optimal 3D model from 3D scan data (Point Cloud or Mesh), that is generated during the Scan Data Processing phase. This process is the core of Reverse Design, where optimized mesh and 3D features, such as 3D curves, 3D surfaces, and 3D solid bodies, are created by using various modeling methods… The Mesh Modeling method creates an optimized mesh that contains important information by applying various geometric and mathematical operations. The Feature Modeling method creates 3D geometric feature shapes based on extracted design intent and elements from 3D scan data The Fitting Surface Modeling method creates fitted freeform surfaces on complex freeform feature shapes. The Hybrid Modeling method creates a complex feature model from 3D scan data by using the Feature Modeling method in conjunction with the Fitting Surface Modeling method” – then, see § 4.2 for more details, in particular its discussion of “Hybrid modeling”, including that it is “useful for designing a new product from a mock-up or clay model” then see §§ 4.2.2-4.2.3, in particular see “Surface fitting technology” note on page 71: “Surface Fitting Technology is a unique technique in the Reverse Design process that provides an effective way to easily and quickly create 3D freeform surface bodies from a freeform mesh shape. It creates surface patches by projecting uniform points within curve loops constructed on a freeform mesh shape, and fitting to the projected points. A 3D freeform surface body is created by connecting fitted surface patches. This technique is usually used for creating a highly accurate 3D freeform surface body from 3D scan data” [instant disclosure; ¶ 58: “As set out in more detail below, this disclosure addresses the problem by using a model which defines a new surface type to represent a mesh.”] – then, see § 4.2.4, including the figure for “Creating a complex 3D Model by using the Hybrid Modeling method” Also, note the discussion starting on page 26 of the 3D sketch, including: “3D Sketch uses spline curves which can be drawn anywhere (3D Sketch) in 3D space or drawn directly on a mesh (Mesh 3D Sketch). 3D Sketch is commonly used for the path of a loft or sweep body. 3D Mesh Sketch is mainly used for generating a curve network on a mesh. Then surfaces can be generated within the network boundaries.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188